If you read the article it's saying the reason why is because 40 players makes for a better experience for that game. It's easy to tell that's just DIC bullshit. BF 1942 which has smaller maps than what Battlefield has no is 64 players ad that works out well. The island maps are very fun because of that due to the landing crafts. If it was 40 players you would not have the same experience and they wouldn't work out. Battlefront 2 on the PC is 64 players and that's not a cluster fuck. The maps need to be a little bigger and have more vehicles but it still works fine for that player cap.

I'm thinking the only reason why it's 40 players is because EA or DICE doesn't want Battlefront to kill the sales for Battlefield so they hinder it so it doesn't. 64 players would work fine for this game and it would make the battles a lot funnier due to content. What sounds funnier to you? A 64 player Hoth battle which means more ATAT's which the game battle is a lot closer to the movie battle or the same old Hoth battle which has less content due to the player size? This game is just going to be fucked due to stupid shit like this and others. 

So, you're thinking of a conspiracy than some more sensical issue that might be tied to the complexity, time-cost of having 64 players in a match?

So then if 64 players is so time demanding then tell me why Battlefield isn't 40 players? Hardline which is the newest game has 64 players. That game got developed during the same time DICE is working on Battlefront so if 64 players is so demanding then that game would have 40 players as well which it doesn't. 

This sort of entitlement is the most annoying factor that many people carry with them when it's about video games and the developer.

Oh yes we're such entitled pieces of shit because we're complaining about a 2015 game having less content than what a 2005 game has. There's nothing more entitled than complaining about being screwed over. What's also entitled are the people who complained about the first DLC pack for Gears of War 3. Those pieces of shit complained about that DLC pack because they were being charged for something they already bought. Even though the DLC is already on the game which was proved those assholes didn't want to pay money to unlock it. God gamers are such fucking assholes nowadays.

The issue is that everyone complains, but still buys the games. Vote with your wallet, not your internet rants.

Quote from: BerzerkCommando on April 23, 2015, 06:06:24 AM

Oh yes we're such entitled pieces of shit because we're complaining about a 2015 game having less content than what a 2005 game has. There's nothing more entitled than complaining about being screwed over.

Which is what I'm going to do. I'm still going to get the game but it's going to be used.

literally no idea. they'll probably say 40 players provides the best performance

It's a good size if AI are still included. If not things might feel a little empty based on map size.

Even with AI I think most people would rather just have their spots being taking up by human players. If it's something like a 3rd party like in Battlefront with the Sand People that would be fun but even then the game could still be 64 players. 8th gen could probably handle 100 players with 64 human players and the rest a AI team. 

Maybe the graphics? BF4 is like 900P on PS4, and mostly 60FPS. So if SWBF actually looks like that trailer, that's a HUGE leap up from BF4. The more they push the hardware, the more they'll have to scale down. I wouldn't be surprised if near the end of the consoles lives, some games are 720P and 30FPS just because of the graphics/physics, etc.. In fact, isn't BF4 720P on X1? Or is it 1080P on PS4 and 900P on X1?

Honestly they probably couldn't do any better on consoles, and got payed to make sure PC wasn't more appealing.

because 20 v 20 is enough...

Quote from: True Turquoise on April 24, 2015, 08:01:22 AM

because 20 v 20 is enough...

Yes and no. For a inside map or a city map 40 players is enough for that, but for large outside maps like Hoth it isn't. Less players means less content for the battle. With 64 players that would mean a lot of vehicles and the battles would be funnier. Battlefront 2 with 64 players works out well. The Battlefront mod for that game is fun with that player count due to some of the maps. 40 players on large maps is going to be empty.

I can see both sides really, I mean, 60 is bloody crazy in BF4, But in BF it could work. So yeah..