DICE: 64 players is the “maximum where it’s still fun”

Thursday, 27th October 2011 00:42 GMT By Brenna Hillier

DICE executive producer Patrick Bach has said there’s no point in pushing Battlefield’s multiplayer beyond 64 players.

“64 players is kind of the maximum where it’s still fun and you can still control the Battlefield. It’s like I can understand where I got shot from and why,” Bach told PC Gamer.

The executive seemed tired of a common belief that the bigger is necessarily better.

“Games are about having fun, it’s not about doing the most you can do. If we can jump two meters it must be better to jump four meters. No,” he said.

In the same interview, Bach reiterated that DICE sees PCas its lead platform, and feels this has been a benefit for the console versions.

“It has forced us to push the limited technology of consoles compared to the PC to a new level, because we set the bar with what we wanted to create on PC and said, ‘How the heck are we going to do this on consoles?’” he said.

Thanks, Gamefront.



  1. DSB

    Someone hasn’t played Planetside.

    More like “64 is the maximum where we still feel capable in making it fun”.

    I really feel like the last few Battlefield iterations have been exactly about “jumping 4 meters instead of 2″. They abandoned clever maps for bigger maps, and he’s certainly right in that not being a very good trade for anyone.

    #1 3 years ago
  2. OrbitMonkey

    ‘How the heck are we going to do this on consoles?’” he said.

    Er, you not mate ;)

    #2 3 years ago

    So they tried it with 66, and thought: ‘this is too many’?

    #3 3 years ago
  4. misieque

    It’s not. It’s just EA abilities and laziness limit.

    #4 3 years ago
  5. Maximum Payne

    @3 There was news they tried with 128 and 256 and it wasn’t fun for them.
    Which you know I agree that would be just clusterfuck and maps would need to be even bigger and so on….

    #5 3 years ago
  6. DarkElfa

    Sometimes Bach just makes me want to punch him. I’m sure if they could do 128 on a server without it being a lag fest, they would say “We feel that 128 players is the maximum where it’s still fun and you can still control the Battlefield.

    As for being shot, hell, I can’t tell where I’m shot from 90% of the time on a 24 person server. It must be all the prone fucking snipers.

    What’s next Bach, you gonna tell us how much you think your game is better than MW3? I was just telling a girl the other day how much better sex with me was than with other guys…

    Besides, I’m sick of these fuckers skipping around the real complaints to try and blow smoke up our asses and polish their balls. How about telling us why you pushed that buggy piece of experimental crap called Battlelog off on your customers before it was ready.

    I’ve spent the whole evening dodging BF3′s buggy servers, buggy gameplay and buggy ass Battlelog system. Patrick Bach can take the 60 bucks put out on my copy of the game up his ass and shut the fuck up till he gets the problems fixed.

    #6 3 years ago
  7. DrDamn

    MAG did 256 players exceptionally well on consoles and it was fun. The crucial part though was that the game and modes were designed around this idea. I tend to agree for the core modes BF has then current limits are fine.

    #7 3 years ago
  8. GrimRita

    I’ve always found 64 player maps to be enough. But I guess its down to map design (and of course lag etc) ensuring that you have a good experience.

    But really, they (and this includes ALL developers) should focus on releasing a product that is more or less free of silly bugs instead of creating more work for themselves.

    #8 3 years ago
  9. viralshag

    I find most of the 64 map games pretty boring tbh. 32 or 48 is my choice for BF3.

    #9 3 years ago
  10. GrimRita

    I cant speak for BF3 but certainly with 2142, Camp Gib was great as 64 player. Total carnage! But it probably comes down to good map design to give you a great experience.

    Can you imagine Metro as a 64 player map?! It simply wouldnt work

    #10 3 years ago
  11. viralshag

    @Grim, Metro-64 is absolutely awful.

    #11 3 years ago
  12. Gizkata

    I played some Metro yesterday with 64 players and it was a fucking mess.

    No joke it was just a firefight with 32 people on the stairs below and the other 32 above in the subway section.

    RPG’s and grenades going off everywhere. I was only in the match for the final 10 minutes or so and died about 15-20 times. Plus this was a Hardcore setup.

    We won in the end but damn I just don’t see the point of the playlist, there was no fun in it at all.

    #12 3 years ago
  13. mojo

    i would rather see DICE letting me decide what is fun to me and what is not.

    #13 3 years ago
  14. OrbitMonkey

    @13 Well if you write DICE a really nice letter, maybe they’ll let YOU design BF4?

    #14 3 years ago
  15. mojo

    this is silly on so many levels i dont even start.

    #15 3 years ago
  16. GrimRita

    And there was me thinking Metro wasnt going to be 64 players.

    #16 3 years ago
  17. Len

    64 make my headspin as it is. Just crazy on the large scale, perfectly designed maps.

    #17 3 years ago

Comments are now closed on this article.