BF4Central - All about Battlefield 4

Rumor: DICE could increase Battlefield 4 player count to 70+

51
DICE is currently testing BF4 multiplayer with 70+ players.

Battlefield 4 multiplayer gameplayBattlefield 4 will officially support 66 players on PC and next gen platforms, which is 2 more than the previous game in the series (due to the addition of the new Battlefield 4 commander feature). But it could be a lot more, according to a new rumor.

DICE is said to be considering 70 or more players in Battlefield 4 multiplayer. This comes from the same source who accurately tipped us about the new Frostbite 3 game engine back in March. According to our source, multiplayer with 70 or more players is being tested, but it’s not certain what the results are so far.



There are two key reasons why 70 players could very well happen. For one, the new squad system has 5 payers per squad, which results in uneven squads with the current 32 players (6 squads would have 5 players, while the last squad would only have 2). Having 35 players would mean 7 squads of 5 players, with no players being left out.

The second reason is that adding +3 more players per team would face no technical hurdles, nor would multiplayer maps need any significant changes. DICE tested BF3 back in the day with 128 and even 256 players, but found that it just wasn’t “fun”. Some BF3 server owners also managed to hack game servers to support 128 players. Battlefield 4 with 128 payers would be overkill, but 70 players sounds very reasonable.

The Battlefield series has stuck with 64 players ever since the first game was released, over 10 years ago. With the arrival of next gen consoles, now would be the perfect time to increase the player size and really differentiate Battlefield 4 from its rivals (most of which support 64 players on PC).

51 COMMENTS & TRACKBACKS

  1. erik
    July 13th, 2013 at 8:06 am

    nice

  2. vadershake
    July 13th, 2013 at 8:24 am

    What DICE, are you admitting you lied about 32 players beinf the “sweet spot” for battlefield like you claimed with bf3? 70 players….lol Planetside 2 has 2, 000 on each map lol.

    • Matze
      July 13th, 2013 at 9:17 am

      Planetside 2 has much larger maps…

      • Cyridius
        July 13th, 2013 at 10:19 am

        It’s an open world shooter but you still fight over bases that tend to be less than half the size of BF maps with double the players.

        It isn’t all that good of an experience.

        I think if DICE ups things to 128 players and makes 2 or 3 large maps(Just port over some B2K maps or BF3 vanilla maps or Armoured Kill maps from BF3) and that would be fine. Restriction on player experience shouldn’t be an option. Even if they consider it sub-optimal, others will enjoy larger player counts, and knowing EA they’ll be releasing map packs from Day 1, and they will have larger maps that will comfortably fit 128 players(Karkand, Kharg Island, Gulf Of Oman, Sharqi Peninsula, would all fit 128 players easily and they were out on release of BF3).

        • dalton
          October 30th, 2013 at 8:43 pm

          yo your right about that but you forgot the bi gist map in battlefield bandar desert that map is big very big

    • bcoolrob
      July 14th, 2013 at 2:49 am

      I played on a hacked game server on BF3 it had over 100 players and it was a MAD! HOUSE!

    • PuddingAuxRais1ns
      July 14th, 2013 at 3:07 pm

      72 players would be perfect for BF4 so every squad on each team has five players. 35+1 commander on each team.

  3. Dinesen
    July 13th, 2013 at 8:30 am

    To be honest I think 12v12 on console is enough. It limits how many idiots there is on my team.

    • mohammad
      July 13th, 2013 at 9:18 am

      depends if you play it with your friends with headsets to guide your team & so on , for me i always play with my friends ( they play bf3 all the time )

      • ChessMania
        July 13th, 2013 at 10:50 am

        12 v 12 wasn’t always the best scenario. Conquest usually ends up everyone running around in circles capture bases until we ran into each other.. 64 player means more battles, vehicles, and areas.. with a 60 FPS!

    • indirulz123
      July 13th, 2013 at 7:41 pm

      not sure if your serious, but 12v12 on CQ is boring as hell… theres legit only 8 players at any giving time actually playing the game, while 4 others are waiting for a vehicle to spawn or are far off sniping…

  4. Logically speaking
    July 13th, 2013 at 8:59 am

    64 is pretty much more than enough.just give a look to a 64 metro, complete chaos.

    They better increase map sizes for 70+ players games…

    • L¤NGOS
      July 13th, 2013 at 9:47 am

      I agree, there are only about 2 or 3 BF3 maps that are suited for more than 48 players imo so if they up the player count to 70 they better make some better and bigger maps…

      • WunderKatze
        July 13th, 2013 at 3:54 pm

        Yeah, thats very true looking back the main issue BF3 has is the maps. There not suited for 64 players or squad work, though there are a few good maps they’re not nearly as good as they could be.

        • Archie67
          August 16th, 2013 at 6:15 pm

          Not all maps have to be compatible with 70 players. Bandar desert could carry 70 while metro could carry the standard 24 player count.

    • jesse d
      July 22nd, 2013 at 2:31 pm

      Yeah if they open up the whole me to map into the park it would be finehbh

  5. WOOT FTW
    July 13th, 2013 at 9:47 am

    They tested BF3 with 256 players! Imagine metro conquest! Wouldn’t that be fun to try for just one day.

    • WOOT FTW
      July 13th, 2013 at 12:25 pm

      Imagine the grenade spam! The map will never stop shaking.

      • WOOT FTW
        July 15th, 2013 at 4:54 pm

        I’m the real WOOT FTw

  6. An idea
    July 13th, 2013 at 10:04 am

    128 is not “overkill”. 128 is a Battlefield. The game would simply have to be tweaked, with more vehicles, or more squad management for the commander.

    • ChessMania
      July 13th, 2013 at 10:57 am

      Hopefully the commander won’t be as irritating as Battlefield 2. Tired of “ENEMY SPOTTED” fourteen times in a row.. But anyway 128 would be hectic if they were Battlefield 3 sized maps, but Armored Kill Maps could probably work with a little more space. 256 would just be suicide..

  7. frank pendle
    July 13th, 2013 at 10:55 am

    I played 256-player bf2 and it was pretty good. I say let’s crowdsource it with one map. BF4 gets to put “up to 128 players” or whatever on the promotional material, and whoever doesn’t like it can go to another server. It’s a valid experiment that would cost relatively Littleton implement but would provide very valuable upside.

  8. sparky
    July 13th, 2013 at 11:15 am

    I would be all for any amount of players. All comes down to map size and what vehicles are available. I just dont want tbe game to suffer graphic wise for tons of players so finding that happy in between would be great. Bf3 graphics were ok console. Bit grainy and slow te xtures at times. I found the garainy part gets worse playing on larger tvs hence the 720 over 1080 war. I bought a 60 inch plasma for gaaming i would lke to start being able to maxize it soon.

  9. danvan
    July 13th, 2013 at 11:45 am

    If this was true will nextgen sopport 70

    • Izzy408
      July 13th, 2013 at 2:37 pm

      Next-gen consoles have hardware similar to that found on high-end PC’s, so i’m pretty sure they can handle 70+ players.

      • MikeyA15
        July 13th, 2013 at 6:24 pm

        High-end PC’s? Biiiiiit of a stretch. Don’t ya think?

        • Your Friendly Neighborhood Poster
          July 13th, 2013 at 8:06 pm

          In terms of raw power consoles are realistically considered low to mid end compared to modern gaming PC’s.

          However, console games from what I know are very optimized meaning developers can make the most of the hardware.

  10. Angelsx
    July 13th, 2013 at 3:00 pm

    Is it confirmed that Battlefield 4 will run 1080p 60fps on next gen?

    • Your Friendly Neighborhood Poster
      July 14th, 2013 at 10:50 pm

      64 players and 60 FPS on consoles was confirmed officially by DICE but I don’t know about 1080p

      • wefwedew
        August 12th, 2013 at 3:20 pm

        64 Players and 60FPS at 720p.

  11. danvan
    July 13th, 2013 at 3:28 pm

    I’m a bit skeptical can you prove it please

  12. danvan
    July 13th, 2013 at 3:30 pm

    I think it can run.60 1080p but I want proof

  13. danvan
    July 13th, 2013 at 10:13 pm

    And this is just a rumor don’t matter how accurate it can be wrong

  14. joey
    July 14th, 2013 at 1:54 am

    maybe it swill be a premium feature :).. pay for getting full squad.

  15. phobia
    July 14th, 2013 at 3:09 am

    What is keeping them from restricting player count based on the map and game mode? It seems quite justified to sacrifice some freedom in server settings for a more streamlined game experience. Bandar Dessert (biggest map in BF history *coughs*) for instance could have easily had a 128 player capacity. I always facepalm when I see those 3500 ticket 64 player Metro only servers or 64 player CQ Domination. Just create for example 3 or 4 formats (10, 20, 40, 80 to keep things simple) and create maps with that in mind, so you have Squad gamemodes (10), Deathmatch (20, 40), Rush (20, 40) and Conquest Large (80) covered from the get go.

  16. Macro_R
    July 14th, 2013 at 4:49 am

    LOL there sould be 72 players instead of 70, because the commander is not in squad! :D

  17. Bannana886
    July 14th, 2013 at 11:42 am

    They shouldn’t do it, or if they do, expand the maps.

    Play a full Noshar Canals TDM match and tell me how it is.

    Honestly, the reason i play battlefield instead of Call of Duty is because that, in my opinion, the pacing is slower, and it makes it enjoyable when i am in the mood for slower pacing. When i am in the mood for a faster paced game, i play Call of Duty, not Battlefield.

    • WunderKatze
      July 14th, 2013 at 4:33 pm

      They said, “…nor would multiplayer maps need any significant changes…” therefore we can assume the maps will be 70 player maps instead of 64 player maps like BF3.

  18. robbie
    July 14th, 2013 at 1:41 pm

    i hope to see 3 factions playing so US vs RU vs CH or 21 vs 21 vs 21 (commanders are counted)

    • danvan
      July 14th, 2013 at 7:11 pm

      They said they wouldn’t do that but be great if they will

    • DotAX
      July 14th, 2013 at 9:19 pm

      I am glad that they won’t do that.

  19. BanDi
    July 15th, 2013 at 5:47 am

    That would suck!

  20. rminter48
    July 15th, 2013 at 6:41 pm

    50 vs. 50 would be great for maps like Siege of Shanghai, there would be a fight on every street.

    • Far Tech V
      July 16th, 2013 at 8:07 am

      Street fighter

  21. Eric2000
    July 16th, 2013 at 10:43 am

    That would be awesome!

  22. jesse d
    July 22nd, 2013 at 2:41 pm

    If you played mag you would see 265 can work. No doubt that game needed tweeking but in essence there was a lot of incredible battles that happened on a massive scale. Space is a factor but in rush you saw potential for all map sizes. Regardless its out of the consumers hands now and all we can hope for is something true to the series

  23. roxtmb
    August 8th, 2013 at 11:44 am

    Battlefield 3 – 64 players
    Battlefield 4 – 70+ players
    [...]
    Battlefield 7 – 100+ players

    -_-

  24. XDchinchilla
    August 12th, 2013 at 1:22 pm

    to me, the more the marrier. but if they add alot more players they simply need to make multiple focal points on a map( the focal point on the Seige Of Shangie being the collapsing skyscraper). that way it wont be absolute chaos on the most popular part of the map. with Seige of Shanghie, you could just make the map bigger add more vehicles and focal points(collapsing buildings)

  25. Spacegy4
    November 1st, 2013 at 8:41 am

    There are already 70 player servers.

  26. sexonastick
    December 14th, 2013 at 3:29 pm

    hahhahhaahhahha NOOBS already 70players you trolling fools, 32 v 32 +2 commanders + 4 spectators! LOLOLOLOOLO Fools!

  27. CHOPPERGIRL
    February 27th, 2014 at 12:15 am

    Quanity does not equal Quality….

    You players are stupid as ever. You’d chose a game server full of idiots over a server with a few hard core good players on it. Because you’re stupid. And you do it over and over and over and over again. Like lemmings. You join only the servers full of players, because you’re stupid followers and groupies.

    If you had your choice to eat of one single steak on a plate, or a shovel full of dirt, which would you chose? How about I up that, with a dump truck load of dirt. Why, you’d chose the dirt every time! Because it must be better. Because there’s more of it… Dumb asses.

    I’ve run Battlefield servers for 6 years now, and the best gaming experience falls somewhere between 12 and 24 players. Anything more than 24, and it just becomes a stupid impersonal madhouse.

    Here’s the deal. If Battlefield 4 sucks at 16 players, and sucks at 24 players, increasing the player count to 70 is not going to make it suck any less….

    Battlefield 3 sucked… because they focused too much on destructible environments and the Frostbite engine, and totally ignored or screwed up game play. If I would of been on the product team, BF3 would of never left the door without me walking out and quitting. Because… its… unplayable. Unplayable as a death match, unplayable, period. Boring.

    My guess is BF4 is going to go further down the toilet, because they are probably going to continue heading in the wrong direction….

    Away from the awesome hardcore Quake Style Deathmatch Multiplayer Arena with ragdolls and vehicle warfare… that was BF2 and BF2142… and towards this stupid idiot scripted single player missions game, or multiplayer gaming polluted by the trinkets of ranking up and metals and collecting icons and crap.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>