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

[Chaser3275]

Hi!

The goal of this thread is to attempt to logically and intelligently figure out the reason for the 8 player maximum on multiplayer modes in the console versions of Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising.



Currently, the most probable scenario is:
The Developers decided to only include game-types that happened to have maximum player counts of eight.

Preliminary Information:

Facts:

• The maximum number of human players in any online match of Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising for consoles is 8.
• Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising will ship with only one mode of competitive online multiplayer. In this mode two teams of four players compete, however each player commands three computer-controlled members of their fireteam.

Clarifications:

• The term "console" refers to either an Xbox 360, or Playstation 3.

As you can see, this thread has been revamped.

Our method of working out what the reason behind the limit involves coming up with a scenario and then applying logic, reason, and evidence to reach a verdict which rates the scenario. The verdict is sometimes a qualitative (like "Probably", or "Unlikely") value rather then a quantitative ("True" or "False") value, because some scenarios are lacking sufficient evidence to come to a more concrete conclusion.

There are three categories of scenarios that could lead to the 8 player limit:

• Console Hardware Limitations
• Developer-imposed Limitations
• Developer Game Design Decisions

The Overview

Console Hardware Limitations:
Console Hardware Limitations are limitations that no developer can surpass no matter what; they are absolute limits imposed by the Console's Hardware. These are the only types of limitations that cannot be fixed in some way by the developers.

• Consoles do not have enough local resources (RAM, CPU, GPU, "Computer Juice", etc) to represent more than 8 players in an online game. Verdict: False.

Consoles have demonstrated their ability to represent online characters that are similar to those in Dragon Rising in a number of games. Examples: Call of Duty 4 (16 players), Battlefield: Bad Company (24), Warhawk (32), Resistance 2 (60), Socom (32)...
With regards to when the console is running as a server, consoles still demonstrate their ability to represent online characters that are similar to those in Dragon Rising in a number of games. Examples: Call of Duty 4 (16 players), Warhawk (~12 - 16), Farcry 2 (16)...
Furthermore, Dragon Rising's 8 player multiplayer includes a total of 24 computer-controlled artificially-intelligent characters – one would assume that these 24 AI bots could be traded for additional online players. Even furthermore, if it does somehow manage to become impossible for the console to support more than 8 players as a server, this scenario turns into "The Developers are unwilling to provide official dedicated servers, which would be required for more than 8 players" scenario of the "Developer-imposed Limitations" category.

• Consoles do not have sufficient bandwidth (internet data transfer capacity) to represent more than 8 players in an online game. Verdict: False.

(Exact same reasons as the scenario above; don't read it twice!) Consoles have demonstrated their ability to represent online characters that are similar to those in Dragon Rising in a number of games. Examples: Call of Duty 4 (16 players), Battlefield: Bad Company (24), Warhawk (32), Resistance 2 (60), Socom (32)...
With regards to when the console is running as a server, consoles still demonstrate their ability to represent online characters that are similar to those in Dragon Rising in a number of games. Examples: Call of Duty 4 (16 players), Warhawk (~12 - 16), Farcry 2 (16)...
Furthermore, Dragon Rising's 8 player multiplayer includes a total of 24 computer-controlled artificially-intelligent characters – one would assume that these 24 AI bots could be traded for additional online players. Even furthermore, if it does somehow manage to become impossible for the console to support more than 8 players as a server, this scenario turns into "The Developers are unwilling to provide official dedicated servers, which would be required for more than 8 players" scenario of the "Developer-imposed Limitations" category.

Developer-imposed Limitations:
Developer-imposed Limitations are limitations that developers have created themselves. An example of a developer-imposed limitation would be "We are limited to square objects because our game engine is poorly coded and cannot represent rectangular ones".

• The Developers are unwilling to provide official dedicated servers, which would be required for more than 8 players. Verdict: False.

This scenario is inherently False, because official dedicated servers are not required to support over 8 players. See "Console Hardware Limitations" category.
If official dedicated servers were somehow required to support more than 8 players, this scenario would be given a verdict of "True".

• The game's networking code is unoptimized and poorly written to an extent that makes it unable to support more than 8 human players. Verdict: Very Unlikely.

I think we all have a little bit more faith in Codemasters then that.
Do we really think that Codemasters failed to hire network coders that knew what they were doing?
Also, even if this was the case, shouldn't they still be able to make an alternate game-type where they remove the 24 AI goons, and replace them with some real human players?

Developer Game Design Decisions:
Developer Game Design Decisions (in this context) are limits that are not directly technical. These limitations were set in place by the developers deliberately to limit you in whichever way they intended.

• The Developers decided to only include game-types that happened to have maximum player counts of eight. Verdict: Maybe.

Because there is such high demand for game-types with more than 8 players, it seems hard to believe that Codemasters would go along with, what seems to me, like the sales equivalent of taking a direct kick to the balls. Surely there must need to be a very good reason to justify that! Perhaps game-types in such high demand were deliberately excluded from the game to promote a DLC pack that would include the desired new game-types?
Perhaps Codemasters has reason to believe that it would not be a direct kick to the balls? Maybe they don't feel that more then 4v4 multiplayer is what their target audience on consoles want? They have been stressing the co-op features a lot...
This one is very difficult, because there isn't really any real evidence or reason to push it either direction.

• Codemasters is part of an evil conspiracy, where they are deliberately making the Console version less fun to promote the PC platform; they're in cahoots with Microsoft. Verdict: False.

It's just too evil, I couldn't see Codemasters involved in one of Microsoft's plans.

How to Help/Argue in a way that will benefit us all

I'm sure there are a number of you who can't wait to tell me how wrong I am on something. The common way to do it (which is also the wrong way) is to make several posts that attempt to discredit me personally, call me stupid, and continue rambling on without really making a valid argument or proving any points.

So, here's the right way to do it:

If you find a problem with a scenario's verdict (and the logic/reasoning/evidence that went along with that verdict), then you should make a post quoting the scenario, and point out the things that are wrong with it, apply your own logic to it, and give your verdict. Your verdict and logic will only replace what is here on the first post if it is better. Don't worry, I'm not going to be stubborn and refuse to accept it; It's pretty clear to me when somebody provides better logic, information, and insight. Do however be prepared to back up your claims.

If you find that a scenario is missing, then go ahead and post about it. You can provide your own verdict if you'd like.






So please, if you think something is wrong with this logic, but you don't want to bother backing it up with any reason or evidence, then just don't bother posting.

Hope this all helps clarify some things in somebody's mind,

-Chaser

Note: This first post here has changed drastically since it's original conception, so the replies on the first 15 or so pages might not totally make sense.

[SWEET DADDY D]

I think they spent so much time on everything else that they didn't have the time to do a nice multiplayer using the consoles true power.
As for DLC it's probably gonna be like BF BC and have a gametype and community choice map pack kinda thing.

[Chavtheworld]

This is the second well thought out and elaborate post I have seen on the forums today, and I like them. Shame the more immature members of the forum, however, are likely just to instantly slag them off.

Before I comment I just want to say I read your WHOLE post.

Technically, what you've deduced is what has been suggested before, CM are trying to screw us for DLC (which sound harsh I know but it has to be put truthfully.) With all of us saying Codies don't know how to market anything, this actually seems to be a good plan. For them. As a consumer it doesn't seem all that great to look at: yeah sure we'll get DLC to keep this game going in the long run, but what are we missing out on?

I personally believe that Codemasters wouldn't do anything they have done without good reason. I just can't see it happening. There is no reason for them to purposefully stab their own game in the back, just to try and sell a bit of DLC later. If this was their plan, they have (supposedly - according to all the forum dealbreaker posts) scared of about as many people who were going to originally buy the game away from it, as they will sell DLC to from this scheme anyway. There must be some other factor. But I can't see them telling us, and I don't expect them to.

I have no idea what to think any more. I'm just going to live with what Codies give us, which I'm sure will still be plenty for us all to sink our teeth into. I still have faith in them. Whether or not I will after this game comes out... Well, that's debatable.

Ps. Sorry for how appallingly the above is written, I have been writing a Media Essay all morning and it has drained me completely, I have nothing left in me to make any form of coherent sense. Oh and good luck with this thread - I really hope it isn't locked, but I don't trust other users on this forum not to kill it for you

[SWEET DADDY D]

Originally Posted by Chavtheworld

This is the second well thought out and elaborate post I have seen on the forums today, and I like them. Shame the more immature members of the forum, however, are likely just to instantly slag them off.

Hope you weren't referring to my post.

[-RAISTLIN-]

and the ignorance keeps on coming.

[Chavtheworld]

Originally Posted by SWEET DADDY D

Hope you weren't referring to my post.

No I started writing my post as soon as he put this thread up, you just got in before I had finished.

[SWEET DADDY D]

Ok sorry just misread.

[ASSASSYN 36o]

I still believe the editor omission on console was done so with the intent to release DLC instead. Which all console gamers 360/ps3 know is a profitable endeavor for game developers. What good would DLC be if we could make the very missions in editor.

And the editor could have been released on a second disc.

[bent.toe]

Good post, but does it change the fact that we only get 8 players in mp? Nope...
And i belive 4vs4 will be awesome since i like smaller tactical groups instead of 12 teammates going all spastic and running off to spray 'n' pray.

[SWEET DADDY D]

Originally Posted by bent.toe

Good post, but does it change the fact that we only get 8 players in mp? Nope...
And i belive 4vs4 will be awesome since i like smaller tactical groups instead of 12 teammates going all spastic and running off to spray 'n' pray.

True but some people like it that way and now some larger scale battles are out of the picture.