The 8 Player Console Limit and the DLC Mystery: Let's try to figure this one out

[Chaser3275]

Okay, now this is starting to get a little tiring.

Hi alphatango1.

If you want to prove my theory wrong then you either need to test my theory properly (with logic and factual evidence, and the theory will either stand, fall, or be revised), or you can create a contending theory.

I've been trying to get you skeptics to test my theory correctly (with logic and factual evidence), however none of you seem to be getting the idea (with the exception of Baff).

So, I figure it's on to plan "B" then. If you want to prove my theory wrong, then I recommend you create a contending theory. Then we will test your theory (in the same way you should all be testing mine), and it will either stand, fall, or be revised.

Sheesh, I'm even giving these skeptics advice on how to prove my theory wrong, and they're still having trouble... I'm starting to wonder if the only skeptic of my theory that is capable of properly disproving my theory is me.
And maybe Baff.

Alright, alphatango1 (flashy name by the way),
Let's do this.

Originally Posted by alphatango1

The consoles favour tight maps, with low detail and a small draw distance. This type of game (ie Arma) is not appropraite for your type of technical setup. You guys only have 256Mbps, a weak CPU and an old G card. Why are you asking for the impossible?

Honestly, I think all machines "favor" tight maps with low detail and small draw distance, much in the same way that I prefer Coca-Cola (little known fact for you).

"impossible"... Hehe...

Originally Posted by alphatango1

A).If you had an editor, the missions most people would create ie, the ones that go bang and boom with lots of units would grind to a halt. THEY WOULD NOT WORK. So to ensure qulaity and customer satisfaction CM have chosen not to give one. You will have DLC

Mmkay.

Originally Posted by alphatango1

B). The MP numbers: I think the reason that the consoles have low MP numbers is because CM hate the consolers. They want to annoy as many consolers as possible and give them the worst MP experience imaginable. Its a big conspiracy.

I haven't posted about it yet, but I'm pretty sure the Pentagon is involved...

Originally Posted by alphatango1

OK, now seriously, its due to processor and network limitations.

Is it now? Orly?
You made that statement almost as though you were going to back it up with logic and irrefutable evidence. Well, not really.

Originally Posted by alphatango1

The TC is totally wrong in his assumptions. This game is pushing the consoles to the max. Its detail, the draw distance and size of the Island. Corners have to be cut and sacrifices made. Be grateful this went to the consoles and wasnt a PC exculsive.

Why does everybody have to abbreviate me? Just call me "Chaser" please.

(watch out folks, I'm about to go into simplification mode)
Let's suppose you're right. Let's suppose that Dragon Rising uses every last drop of computer juice for it's streaming system or whatever (mmm... streaming computer juice...), and it is somehow impossible for them to lower the quality of the graphics even slightly for the benefit of gameplay.

I'm betting those 24 pathfinding AI goons laying around take up some juice right?

What if, we sold those 24 AI goons for how much juice they're worth, and buy real human players instead!? I mean sure, AI goons have a different juice value on the open market than real human players – logic suggests that AI goons are probably around the same juice value as human players, but Baff's findings suggest that AI goons are worth less. Regardless, I reckon you should be able to buy at least 4 - 8 human players, don't you think?


The theory (and the logic behind it) still stands.

Time for bed,

-Chaser

[RocheClip38]

Originally Posted by Milkman128

It is clearly a hardware issue not sure why all the hatred for CM based on MS & Sony's limitations seems odd but I guess that's a key difference between the system mentalities.

PC gamers look at the requirements dictated by the developer and adjust if they want to play the latest and greatest.

Console gamers limit the developers to their hardware and demand the game be made around their system.

Sorry, But I'm simply still not buying hardware limitations. The only thing the PS3 lacks is RAM. Simple as that. It doesn't have to run a complicated operating system in the background, no background programs, anti-virus (Though I do have Anti-Virus on the PS3) etc. I'm gonna plead my case, and I think I have a good one.

First of all, lets take the DLC idea. It's said in an article a few weeks ago that stuff was being held back. That made me not happy. http://community.codemasters.com/for...13&postcount=2 Which very promptly got a return http://community.codemasters.com/for...92&postcount=8. I was pleased with the answer. Right up untill I read this thread, and seen your post from page 3. I read your links and it occured to me what a large part of the DLC problem no doubt comes from. This is gonna stir the pot, but that is not my intentions. It's actually an issue with the 360, probably by a large amount.

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3169963 - an article about some game named rage and it's 360 woes. They've already hit the technical limit wall, with a huge part of the problem being storage. 360's have optional HD's and DVD Drives (8.5 Gigs? I usually use single layer). PS3's have BLUERAY (Up to 50 Gigs on 1 disc), and HD's. Not to mention the ability to upgrade the HD and add an external drive as well.

http://gaygamer.net/2007/05/gta_iv_3...to_show_t.html From RockStar (Your link again). Stating a big problem is Storage.

http://gamer.blorge.com/2009/01/03/r...-to-its-limit/ and finally from the makers of Red Faction.
Quote -

Gameplayer: So you’re saying that RFG is pushing the hardware as far as it can go? Squeezing every drop of juice out of the Xbox 360?
Rick White: Yeah, we’ve got it to the point where we can’t even put an extra vehicle into a world, because it’ll blow the memory. Every little change we make we have to be hyper-critical about it because it could just bring the whole system down. We evaluate every little change in the game, and then we run our tools on it to make sure it isn’t going to break the game and then we move forward, so it really is about pushing the engine as far as we can, and pushing the hardware as far as we can, and then looking at what is the next set of hardware that’s going to come out. Where can we take it then? You know we’re already thinking about if we had XYZ X number of years from now, what would we do with our engine?

quote 2 - The PS3 is an obvious one, with most developers having taken this long to even get to grips with the hardware and development tools. And none of them are suggesting they’re anywhere close to pushing the system to its limits.

-----------------------------------------------------------
I personnaly think that the 360's are just maxed out for space on their tiny DVD's. I think that is the reason vehicles are left out, when there is ample room on the other 2 systems. To make it even across the board, both consoles get left out for DLC. Otherwise it'd be like having two kids, on XMAS day, 1 gets all his presents, the other gets a few and has to wait a month for the rest.

So, problem 2. Is it about PROCESSING POWER. I think not either. Yeah, I can make a case there too. This is gonna be essay style I guess, but stick with me

Intel Core I7 - http://elnexus.com/articles/Nehalem-2P-Benchmarks.aspx
Notice that this too is an 8 core system as well as the PS3. I understand the 2 work different, but the idea is to get it to do stuff together efficiently. Apples and oranges.


XBOX 360- http://groups.google.com/group/comp....61fe7bae?pli=1 3 Symetrical 3.2ghz cores. Floating point performance (1 TFlop)

PS3-http://playstation.about.com/od/ps3/a/PS3SpecsDetails_3.htm
1 3.2ghz core and 7 SPE's running @ 3.2 GHZ with a system floating point performance of 2 TFlops (Optimal)

From my understanding, while TFlops don't help gaming, what they are great for is stuff like Algorythms and stuff. You know the stuff thats used for modeling, simulating stuff in supercomputers. As tech grows, and in game AI grows, we're becoming more heavily reliant on processing them. In that case, the consoles arn't really that bad, and really only lack in ram. It's been stated numerous times that the PS3 is a black hole of power if you program for it correctly. It eats through smaller packets at alarming rates and spits em out (I'll back that up if asked, look up companys like Naughty Dog). Is processing power the problem? Doubt it. I still blame Bill Gates and his greed to rush stuff out before its ready.

Case 3- Bandwidth. LMFAO. Host controlled games are heavily reliant on the HOSTS bandwidth. I have seen on the ea forums that optimum host speeds are around 7-12meg service. Game depending. Many people on the network are paying a premium for top notch net connections, as I know many of you are. I'm at 7meg now, but come January I'm sitting pretty at 15 I believe. It also takes bandwidth to process AI movements, and as you can program a single PS3 SPE to process networking @ 3.2 GHZ (Something MAG learned, to not program "Normally") you can attain wicked speeds you thought were imposible. Both systems have high speed wireless (My ps3 speedtests @ 6.7 megs) and can be wired, Speed can't be the issue either. Oh, and I rarely ever get lag unless I'm downloading heavy on the PC as well.

My honest opinion- I think the limit comes from a small lack of power on part of the consoles behalf. Probably from a lack of hardcore experience (Loads of practice with dedicated titles and Sony Techs helping) on the PS3 side coupled with a minor Ram issue (Which can actually be semi by-passed). 360's may be pushing the power "harder" then the PS3's but I think that system has reached a critical point in numerous areas and may not be able to push further easily. I don't want to point any more fingers here, I've done enough for a flame war already.

DLC - <Points> IT WAS HIM!!!! BILL GATES DID IT!!!
So much for the pointing. Damn eh? I think the DLC issue come from the same problem Red Faction did. Lack of space on a frick outdated DVD disc. If prompted, I'll visit as certain site I've been kindly asked NOT to name, and give you a listing of some games, and their PACKED file sizes. Gee, Most fit on Bluerays, or PC hard drives, but a lot take over 1 dvd. A problem when your trying to fit it onto one disc because you don't have a GUARANTEED storage medium.

Thats it for now, I may update this later if asked to back up some of my "crap" but thats my long assed take on it
I'd like to hear from CM on why things were decided on and I'd actually like to hear it bluntly. Not generalized bs please.

[EkurioX]

Whr are you quoting this from?

[alphatango1]

Hi Chaser,

A lot has been written in this thread and I havent got time to read through every page. So to clarify, you are maintaining that:

1). The MP 4 vs 4 has no bearing on the network or the CPU of the consoles? That despite the PC having a higher MP count, the decision to not duplicate this feature on the platform was due to non technical reasons?

2). The Mission Editor. Again this is not included due to Non technical reasons?

3) That using AI bots uses more resources than human ones. Correct?

Have I missed anything?

Thanks

Alpha

[Hamish]

I do believe that the reason that the limit is in place is because of a lack of bandwidth. Since there are no dedicated servers for consoles in OF:DR, it'll probably end up with one player acting as a server.

Now you say, this shouldn't be a problem, we get 18 players on CoD4 without lag. Yes that's true, but the maps are much smaller on CoD4 so the player's location information may take up only 8 bytes or so each step. In a far larger map like those we'll see in DR, it'll take significantly more bytes to give an accurate location for the player.

The bots, also, do not need anywhere near 50% of the bandwidth that the players need. Since each player has some bots which belong to him, those bot's locations can all be expressed in terms of their parent player.

ie. Player's Location = x=3867, y=1034, z=20
Bot's Location = x=30, y=10, z=0

The bot's location is then added to the player's location to obtain it's real location at x=3897, y=1134, z=20.

I agree with you that processor/graphics horsepower is not an issue, the bot's models will have to drawn anyway.

On top of it all, I just can't see any feasible reason why Codemasters would impose the 4v4 limit if it wasn't for technical reasons. There's no way they're doing it for a bit of a laugh or to play a practical joke on the community, and there's no way that they think 4v4 + bots will result in better gameplay.

[Chaser3275]

Originally Posted by alphatango1

Hi Chaser,

Hi Alpha!

Originally Posted by alphatango1

A lot has been written in this thread and I havent got time to read through every page. So to clarify, you are maintaining that:

I totally get that. I hate it when an interesting thread pops up and you want to provide your opinion, but it's like 11 pages – nobody wants to have to sift through all of that just to say something.

I like this post, and I like how you are seeking friendly clarification.

Originally Posted by alphatango1

1). The MP 4 vs 4 has no bearing on the network or the CPU of the consoles? That despite the PC having a higher MP count, the decision to not duplicate this feature on the platform was due to non technical reasons?

Not quite.
I maintain that the 8 player limit imposed on the multiplayer component of the console versions of Dragon Rising is not a technical limitation of the console hardware.

I also raise that it should be simple for Codemasters to create an alternate game-type where they simply strip out the 24 AI goons hanging around the competitive multiplayer game-type, and replace them with 4 - 8 human players (making the player count a happy 12 or 16 or so).

I understand the higher count you find on PC's, and find nothing wrong with that.

Originally Posted by alphatango1

2). The Mission Editor. Again this is not included due to Non technical reasons?

I have not made any statements about the mission editor.
It's my personally guess that the mission editor was not included with the console version of the game because it would be a very monumental task. It would require tons of work to port it, and to create all the systems that go along with it (ways to share maps with friends, etc). At the end of the day, I think Codemasters decided that it was too much work to please the small portion of their audience who would want the mission editor.
Just my guess.

Originally Posted by alphatango1

3) That using AI bots uses more resources than human ones. Correct?

No.
Baff has provided evidence towards the notion that AI bots actually consume less resources than online player representations. Nobody understands why this is, because this seems to defy all logic: The only difference I can imagine is that an AI bot requires more juice to run it's complex Artificial Intelligence, and that online players tend to come with voice chat (which seems more like a bandwidth issue to me).
Nevertheless, Baff's evidence is good, and defeats the logic.
If you happen to know why things may be the way they are, please, let us know!

Originally Posted by alphatango1

Have I missed anything?
Thanks
Alpha

Nope.
Thank you,

-Chaser

[Baff]

Some notes.

24 bots pathfinding is not a very system hungry operation. Dune could do 100's on a 386 10Mhz processor with 1 meg of RAM.
Supreme Commander has a default limit of 5,000 AI.
The original Operation Flashpoint which ran on a 333 MHz CPU had a default cap of 256.




PS 3 is not only very restricted compared to a PC by RAM but also by processor and domestic bandwidth. A typical home broadband package has an upload of 128-256 kbps.
Those big internet servers for 64 player games are using 10-1000M uploads and multiple processors each 2 or 3 times as powerful as the Cell chip, processors specifically designed for floating point mathmatical operations not budget clunkers, originally designed to run Microsoft Word for the office computer market.




As the poster above mentions, COD is very well designed for multiplayer and is a very well evolved game engine.
Cut CM some slack, this isn't their 200th network shooter on this engine it's their first.

COD has very severe limitations in order to optimise netcode. Limitations that would fundamentally change the nature of Operation Flashpoint gameplay, from Flashpoint into..well..into COD.

Specifically, small view distances and small maps with lots of walls and houses and stuff so that you can never see very many enemies at any one time.
Limited choices of player loadouts/equipment.

AOI, or Area of Influence.
When one player can detect another player, by sight or sound, they have entered into eachothers AOI.

The server must then calculate and relay this information 2 times (2!) simultaneously. Once to each of them.
(What they look like, what direction they are facing if they are moving, what sounds they make, their stances, their animations etc.).
The server must repeat this process once per second for every frame (Fps) the client wishes to receive, so typically 60 times a second on PC, and 30 times a second on console.

Add a third player into the AOI and the server must calculate this information 6 times (3!). It must communicate the different positions of each of the 3 players each to the other two players.
It's an exponential progression. 1!, 2!, 3!, 4!,5!.....16! etc So that for each player you add to the AOI the system uses wildly more resouces. CPU, RAM and bandwidth.



COD deals with this by designing the maps so that players never really see most of the other players at the same time. It splits them up. 4!x4!x4!x4! < 16! An awful lot less.
I don't have a scientific calculator on me, but think in terms of millionths of the same amount of resources being used just by smart arena design alone.

In Operation Flashpoint however, a guy in a helicopter can see all of them all the time and they can all see him, so the system usage cannot be cheated/optimised in this way.
We could of course compromise the view distance. Like many other games do to limit this.
But then we would be sniping at ranges of 300 metres again and firing our Hellfires from the same, BF2 style.
In order for Operation Flashpoint to simulate long range combat with many players it must needs be a very powerful server.

The servers used to run the original game and indeed it's sequels, ArmA and ArmA 2 for 64 players are not domestic computers and not domestic internet links. (64!)!
Likewise they are significantly more powerful machines than those used to host a 64 player game of BF or Unreal.

In the case of this game we can see that they have chosen to go with half the player numbers in exchange for open realworld maps instead of the contrived "multiplayer arena's" you get in COD.

So yes, you can get 16 players in COD.............. but well, in order to do so, the game must play like COD too.

[Hamish]

Originally Posted by Baff

PS 3 is not only very restricted compared to a PC by RAM but also by processor.

No, it's simple processing of data like this that the PS3's many SPUs excel in.

[Chaser3275]

It's Baff!

Originally Posted by Baff

Some notes.
24 bots pathfinding is not a very system hungry operation. Dune could do 100's on a 386 processor with 1 meg of RAM.
Supreme Commander has a default limit of 5,000 AI.
The original Operation Flashpoint which ran on a 233 GHz CPU had a deafault cap of 256.

A good accurate pathfinding operation can be quite an expensive operation.
I know from experience; I somewhat recently built a pathfinder from scratch. There are various tricks that can be used to make it faster (while sacrificing accuracy, and often speed [that probably sounded confusing but it's true]). As long as the pathfinder is well thought out, it shouldn't pose any real threat to the CPU with only 24 units – it is at that point however, significant enough to consider.

I'm quite certain that a game like Supreme Commander (with it's 5 000+ AI units) doesn't really pathfind for each individual unit at that scope.

Originally Posted by Baff

PS 3 is not only very restricted compared to a PC by RAM but also by processor and domestic bandwidth. A typical home broadband package has an upload of 128-256 kbps.
Those big internet servers for 64 player games are using 10-1000M uploads and processors 2 or 3 times as powerful as the Cell chip, processors specifically designed for floating point mathmatical operations not budget clunkers, originally designed to run Microsoft Word for the office computer market.

The typical home bandwidth package provides the same bandwidth into the back of my PS3 as into the back of my PC.

Originally Posted by Baff

As the poster above mentions, COD is very well designed for multiplayer and is a very well evolved game engine.
Cut CM some slack, this isn't their 200th network shooter on this engine it's their first.

What, so I'm supposed to just drop the whole issue based on the idea that Codemasters is terribly inexperienced and under-qualified to provide a good multiplayer experience? If they don't know what they're doing, then they shouldn't be paid to do it.

Originally Posted by Baff

COD has very severe limitiations in order to optimise netcode. Limitations that would fundamentally change the nature of Operation Flashpoint gameplay, from Flashpoint into..well..into COD.

There are many times in COD where you can see every player in the level, and no, my PS3 does not explode.

Originally Posted by Baff

Specifically, small view distances and small maps with lots of walls and houses and stuff so that you can never see very many enemies at any one time.
Limited choices of player loadouts/equipment.

View draw distances are irrelevant in this context.
Limited choices of player loadouts/equipment? Come on, even you know better than that; that has nothing to do with technical limitations, that's a design decision made by the COD developers.

Originally Posted by Baff

AOI, or Area of Influence.
When one player can detect another player, by sight or sound, they have entered into eachothers AOI.

I know about that.

Originally Posted by Baff

The computer must then calculate and relay this information 2 times (2!) simultaneously. Once to each of them.
(What they look like, what direction they are facing if they are moving, what sounds they make, their stances, their animations etc.).
Add a third player into the AOI and the computer must calculate this information 6 times (3!). It must communicate the different positions of each of the 3 players each to the other two players.
It's an exponential progression. 1!, 2!, 3!, 4!,5!.....16! etc So that for each player you add to the AOI the system uses wildly more resouces. CPU, RAM and bandwidth.

Which computer has to calculate and then relay AOI information? There should be no relaying of any AOI information – the AOI information is calculated by the server, for the server. The server calculates AOI information to get away with not sending certain information to particular players.

Of course, the outgoing information from the server is multiplied by how many clients need the information. More players, more information to go around. Simple. But that certainly doesn't place our limit at 4v4 players! That's just lame!

Originally Posted by Baff

COD deals with this by designing the maps so that players never really see most of the other players at the same time. 4!x4!x4!x4! < 16! An awful lot less.

I believe the COD maps were designed for gameplay purposes, not for bandwidth purposes. There certainly are levels in the series where every player would be within your AOI (Bog, Shipment). The COD games simply cannot rely on you not being able to see all of the enemy players at the same time.

Originally Posted by Baff

In Operation Flashpoint however, a guy in a helicopter can see all of them all the time and they can all see him, so the system usage cannot be cheated/optimised in this way.
We could of course compromise the view distance. Like many other games do to limit this.
But then we would be sniping at ranges of 300 metres again and firing our Hellfires from the same, BF2 style.
In order for Operation Flashpoint to simulate long range combat with many players it must needs be a very powerful server.

View draw distance limits in most games are probably GPU related, not bandwidth related.

Originally Posted by Baff

The servers used to run the original game and indeed it's sequels, ArmA and ArmA 2 for 64 players are not domestic computers and not domestic internet links. (64!)!
Likewise they are significantly more powerful machines than those used to host a 64 player game of BF or Unreal.

Not asking for 64 players, asking for 12 - 16.
And what's wrong with having dedicated hosts in the console version of the game? Lots of games do that.

Originally Posted by Baff

In the case of this game we can see that they have chosen to go with half the player numbers in exchange for open realworld maps instead of the contrived "multiplayer arena's" you get in COD.

So yes, you can get 16 players in COD.............. but well, in order to do so, the game must play like COD too.

Had to make this post really quick, I've gotta go!
-Chaser

[Baff]

Originally Posted by Chaser3275

The typical home bandwidth package provides the same bandwidth into the back of my PS3 as into the back of my PC.





What, so I'm supposed to just drop the whole issue based on the idea that Codemasters is terribly inexperienced and under-qualified to provide a good multiplayer experience? If they don't know what they're doing, then they shouldn't be paid to do it.



There are many times in COD where you can see every player in the level, and no, my PS3 does not explode.



View draw distances are irrelevant in this context.
Limited choices of player loadouts/equipment? Come on, even you know better than that; that has nothing to do with technical limitations, that's a design decision made by the COD developers.


I know about that.


Which computer has to calculate and then relay AOI information? There should be no relaying of any AOI information – the AOI information is calculated by the server, for the server. The server calculates AOI information to get away with not sending certain information to particular players.

Of course, the outgoing information from the server is multiplied by how many clients need the information. More players, more information to go around. Simple. But that certainly doesn't place our limit at 4v4 players! That's just lame!


I believe the COD maps were designed for gameplay purposes, not for bandwidth purposes. There certainly are levels in the series where every player would be within your AOI (Bog, Shipment). The COD games simply cannot rely on you not being able to see all of the enemy players at the same time.


View draw distance limits in most games are probably GPU related, not bandwidth related.


Not asking for 64 players, asking for 12 - 16.
And what's wrong with having dedicated hosts in the console version of the game? Lots of games do that.





Had to make this post really quick, I've gotta go!
-Chaser

A typical home bandwidth is the same on your PC as your PS3, but a typically dedicated server for a PC internet game is not hosted from home. It is hosted from a server centre.

View distances are very relavent. Especially in an open world shooter.
The more people in your AOI, the exponentially more system resources the server uses.
Limit the view distance limit the AOI.
COD is the wrong example. BF2 is the one you want. It's why the aircraft fly in and out of vision rather than being seen in the blue skies from anywhere on the map.
Because if they don't, the game lags.

Yes, view distances are also limited to optimise GFX, but lets try and stay on topic, and stick to the networking aspects.


Now that you know what to look for you should play COD once more on your PS3. Look out for those times when you can see all the players at the same time. I think you'll find it's a very rare experience indeed. It may also come at a performance hit at them time.
I'm sorry but I'm not familiar with any individual map names. I don't play COD.
The same netcode optimisations are made for all games using Unreal and ID engines. It's been standard practice since Doom.

By the sounds of it you have yet to experience making maps for multiplayer games. Optimisation is the key.
There are other tricks, the people at ID know them all. If you wish to become a netcoder for FPS games, you could do a lot worse than learn from the originators and writers of the most commonly used gaming netcodes inthe world.
I found their tutorials at www.unrealadmin.org very insightful. I can't recommned it enough to server hosts. you might enjoy it too.


The difference in available units and weapons and looks increass the size of the bandwidth.
In CoD if you have a choice of 1-8 options, encrypted that info is 1 byte long. 1-16, 2 bytes long. In Flashpoint that could easily be 256 or 32 bytes long. Requiring more bandwidth to transmit and more RAM to store and more CPU power to decrypt.
Again since we are multiplying this figures by exponentials even tiny differences will soon multiply out to make vast ones.

The server calculates the AOI. Which on a typical console game is "the host".


And yes there is no reason why you could not theoretically set up a dedicated server software for your PS3 other than no such server software currently exists.
Of course that not many people will buy a PS3 to host a games they can't themselves participate in.
Creating a PC server to host for PS3's however, that is a more viable solution in my opinion. It will allow you bigger games and is cheaper to host in a server centre.
(Although that's still not to say Codemasters have any member of staff who knows how to program that. Netcoders are not two a penny).

Then you could hire a clan server and play on that.
This is certainly the only way I can see of increasing the player limits for consolers and still maintaining the integrity of the game rather than just remaking COD by another name.



I absolutely agree with you, you are under no obligation to buy a software you don't want.
If CM aren't making a game you want to buy, don't buy it.
But if you just wanted to know why they have limited multiplayer compared to COD, you now do.

There is nothing wrong with asking for 12-16 player multiplayer. There is a new COD coming out. That game is available.
Or you could buy a PC and get 12-16 player on this game.

What you can't have is this game 12-16 player on a console because the console can't do it for the reasons similar to those I have explained. If you want COD, buy COD.
If you want Flashpoint buy Flashpoint, or if want Flashpoint on a system as powerful as PC, buy a PC.

It's not rocket science, even if it isn't the answer you wanted to hear.