One of the most promoted features of Battlefield 2042 is the matches with up to 128 players. Now players have discovered statements from a former developer: The feature was apparently already a topic 8 years ago with Battlefield 3 and was discarded.
With the release of Battlefield 2042, fans are lively discussing the game. Not every player likes one of the biggest innovations of the shooter: On PC, Xbox Series, and PS5, up to 128 players can compete against each other in an All-Out Warfare match.
Now they have unearthed statements from former DICE chief Patrick Söderlund made before the release of Battlefield 3 in 2013.
Back then, they apparently experimented with 128 players, but the developers were probably not convinced.
Former DICE employees speak out
What was said back then? The then DICE chief explained that the team for Battlefield 3 had already made “extensive investigations” with 128-player matches.
The result, however, was not satisfactory; 128-player matches simply weren’t fun:
“Many people asked us about [matches with] 64 versus 128 or 256 players. Technically, we could go up to 256, we tried it,” Söderlund said back then.
“We tested 128 players. You have to make a game that is fun to play, and we think the most fun you can have is when between 32 and 40 players compete against each other.”
He further stated back then: “We did extensive investigations and tested 128 players, and it’s not fun. […] we just believe that it doesn’t make sense to go higher than 64 [players].”
via Twitter
These statements are 8 years old, but are reaffirmed by several former DICE employees. For instance, former multiplayer designer David Sirland and former Battlefield producer Jaqub Ajmal commented on the topic:
- David Sirland (via Twitter): “I personally always believed that 48 players at 64-player layouts is the ideal point.”
- Jaqub Ajmal (via Twitter): “I agree 100%. Also, vehicles should be directly on the map and limited, not this ridiculous menu-spawning. […]”
Both left DICE after the rocky release of Battlefield V. Apparently, the new management reconsidered and brought back the 128 players to the table.
Players increasingly criticize the large number
How players are reacting: With the release, more and more players express doubts about the supposedly cool feature of 128 players per match.
Many find it too chaotic with so many players on a map, which supports the decision that DICE made back then with Battlefield 3 and all subsequent installments up to Battlefield 2042.
The vehicle spawning is also viewed very critically, as it is now actively used to rush directly to the enemy base at the beginning of a match with the jet and take out players who have just landed.
Many also see the too large maps as a problem. For example, moonski states: “64 players would also be horrible if the new maps are too large.” (via reddit)
OJ191 sees the balancing as the key, which is more crucial than the number of players: “I think in a hypothetical world with perfect game and map design, 128 or 64 players would be largely irrelevant, as the design and player density required for fun would remain similar, barring some exceptions. Unless you reshape the core gameplay to promote massive 64-v-64 battles.” (via reddit)
Ultimately, it’s still too early to say whether 128 players are too many or not. But what do you think? Do you have a problem with the high player counts? Or do you think it’s good that larger battles are finally possible?
At the release, Battlefield 2042 had a bad start on Steam anyway, is currently being torn apart on Steam and has only 21% positive reviews
