There you go again, selectively interpreting what DICE mean in their statements. If a game is hosted on a dedicated server you can potentially have as many clients connected in a game as your server can handle. The only time it can become a problem for a client is if, for some bizarre reason, every player in the game is stood in a spot on the map which is visible from every point on the map; even on a high end PC this would cause problems. The point is, a dedicated server has nothing to do other than monitor the game and transmit this information to all of the players who are connected; it doesn't run the game and there is no player on the other end. On the other you have the console version of games which are, typically, hosted on one clients Xbox or PS3. In that case, not only does that console have to monitor the game from a clients perspective, it has to monitor the game from the hosts perspective; it has to track the scores, the states of the players, send messages to each client, recieve messages from each client. All of this while the game is being played by someone on the host console. It is no wonder then that in this scenario that CPU and Memory become a concern. Ultimately, if you were to have a dedicated server run a console game you can have a game that equals the PC in terms of the number of players and examples have already been given to show this. But to your other points. Calling you a fucking dumbass isn't a personal attack; it's an observation. On the otherhand you could be quite easily found guilty of trolling, especially from pages 2 and 3.
Considering what people pay for Xbox Live, it's always bothered me that MS doesn't provide dedicated servers.
it is surprising, considering how many of sony's games have dedicated servers. Maybe everyone's paying to look at adverts on Live.
I've changed my mind on this topic. I think Monsly is right. The problem isn't the consoles. It's the popularization of gaming. Consoles used to be loaded with great, innovative gems too, particularly the SNES. But as gaming gets more popular, it's becoming like Hollywood with lots of popular, big budget crap like Call of Duty Black Ops that your average Joe will think is great, but anyone with taste will recognize as garbage.
All this doesnt explain the GPU limitations that the PS3/360 have according to dice. Another thing is that with BF2, you could host your own server on your PC for a LAN or unranked matches on a dual core with enough ram. So its still an limitation of the consoles CPU and memory thats holding them back from the bigger player limit. Regarding your other points, okej, that way. Your an cancerhead, thats my observation.
CoD got garbage exactly when it started to get multiplatform, before it was only PC. If it aint the consoles itself, its the people using them, in your terms. They have accepted those kind of garbage/dumbed down games.
I think Call of Duty went downhill after Modern Warfare. The CoD series had gotten so popular that Activision realized they could shit in a box and it would still sell millions. And considering that WaW, MW2 and Black Ops also sold well on the PC, you can't really argue that the idiots who buy this crap are just on the consoles.
Because it doesn't need explaing. What the fuck are you smoking over there? NEWSFLASH: The graphics hardware in the consoles is SIX YEARS OLD..of course there's going to be a huge difference between a modern CPU/GPU and the ones inside the PS3 and 360; you're not revealing anything new and it no way validates your complaint that consoles somehow tarnish PC games.. Whats the big complaint here? That it won't look as good? That a game not looking as good on a console somehow diminshes the PC version even if both the PC verision and Console version are stallar games? You don't have the first clue what you're talking about yourself.. not the slightest idea and you're flip flopping between your complaints. You couldn't run a 64 player server at home and run a copy of the game on the same server. You're talking shit..but then what exactly is new there. A what?
hosting a server on your own pc still requires beefier hardware than if you're just playing the game. It will also be subpar unless you have a good internet connection with good upstream. The main factor is as monsly said, mainstream appeal. The fact is, pc gaming has been a relatively niche market compared to consoles. Developers will do the most to appeal to the mass market because that's where the money is. It's why films like twilight get millions of fangirls whilst something like Never let me go has a much smaller fanbase.
It does, as DICE answered the question why the consoles cant handle more then 24 players, they named the CPU, GPU, and memory. Perhaps cause the maps would be too big for the console to handle. Dont forget that BF2 allready needed 2GB to run properly, no matter what settings, on 64 player sized maps, could be network is affecting it, but its certainly also the fault of the consoles small amount of memory. You can blame the network, but even 24 players would be way to much for 90% of all home connections, and too much for the little amount of ram for the consoles and their CPU's.
Ivent tried it, on the other hand, ive tried to atleast 20 people on my old machine for a clan match locally, and i played the game aswel on that machine, didnt lag for me. Ive also administer the battle.no servers and each server easily handles 3 sessions BF2 with 64 slots each, those are Dual Core Xeons.
I think there's another factor at work as well: the budgets of modern games are bigger, which in turn means that there's more to lose if the games don't sell well, which in turn means that publishers are more likely to hedge towards safe bets and established trends. It's not a coincidence that you typically see more risk taking and original ideas in lower budget downloadable games than the mainstream retail titles.
Agreed. But then at least we get some gems like the Uncharted series, heavy Rain and the last guardian.
Wow. So hosting a game on your own computer and playing at the same time allowed you to host around the same number of people that you get in a console shooter? Christ...I don't think you could have made my point for any better. Thanks.
Very true. And this is also the problem in Hollywood. Why make something unique with good writing and acting when you can make a Twilight movie or some over-CGI'ed summer blockbuster that will bring in far more money? The only hope in the film industry is on the indie side of things, and I think it's getting that way with games too. One of the best games I've played in the last few years was Sins of a Solar Empire, and it was made by an indie developer for next to nothing, yet looks and plays like a million bucks.
You're the one under the misguided belief that consoles are to blame for the dumbing down of games. You're the zombie here as you don't appear to be exhibiting any brain activity, you're just repeating the same meaningless points over and over with thought as to their relevancy. There have been numerous posts in this thread explaining why people play football instead of collecting stamps, you just don't seem to be taking any of it in.
Was referring to 'It won't have gotten any better.' Its not a misguided belief, its for sure partly thanks to the consoles, the audience on them accepts trash games.