(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); Saw this image in Reddit and solved one of my most asked questions (by myself).

You must login or register to view this content.

Yeah it's pretty obvious that would be the reason...

It would be awesome to increase the maximum server size, but I would rather it not compromise performance.

Maybe stupid question but why is it pc seems to get more features than consoles???? especially PS3?? i.e. more flags, different planes , etc????

don't flame, just asking a question!!!!!

Then Explain M.A.G...

mag's able to have up to 256 players because of it's lack of graphical performance. I think anyone (me especially lol) who has/ still plays mag will admit, it isn't very pretty on the eyes... Battlefield 3 on the other hand is... do you want 32/64 man servers running with a shitty FPS rate because the system can't keep up? Or do you want 32/64/128/256 man servers where the game looks like a bastardized version of counter-strike? Choice is up to you.

PC's run a different type of server; that has been worked on to handle way bigger flow. So much goes through the internet servers, and when your on a PC you can access that whole flow. When on a console, stated above, the console hardware cannot handle to even get remotely close to using the full potential of the internets access.

So, they do their best and get to max 24; which in turn can probably go up to 32 but they've realized it's no longer fun with all the lag and lower quality performance.

The RAM limitations on the PS3 prevents this I believe. There may be other factors but that is the only one I am aware of. The reason they don't have it for XBOX is to balance it with PS3.


He didn't quote you but the guy below you replied with a pretty good explanation.


Uhh kinda off topic?

They are just stupid because Mag on ps3 gets like 256 people in one lobby so I dont think its hardware.

Good post mate!!