I'm guessing "And it's a big guess" that in order to run in a virtual machine "Amazon servers" a lot needed to be removed.
@sk1lld wrote:I'm guessing "And it's a big guess" that in order to run in a virtual machine "Amazon servers" a lot needed to be removed.
Yes and also the fact that they needed cross-play support, and support a larger number of players per instance.
What we need is proper support for PC only and Console only servers with 32 and 64 player instances.
Then maybe we can increase the tick rate to levels we had with BF3/4
@D4rk-S4v4nt wrote:
@sk1lld wrote:I'm guessing "And it's a big guess" that in order to run in a virtual machine "Amazon servers" a lot needed to be removed.
Yes and also the fact that they needed cross-play support, and support a larger number of players per instance.
What we need is proper support for PC only and Console only servers with 32 and 64 player instances.
Then maybe we can increase the tick rate to levels we had with BF3/4
I'd say this argument would've made sense before 2020, but since then consoles have become more or less capable in my opinion. I mean just look at some of the console titles, heck if they can run games like Red Dead Redemption 2 at 60 FPS...
So yeah, I think hardware limitations is an excuse from a bygone era. What we're looking at is something fundamentally wrong with 2042, just compare its performance with BFV.
The asset count limitation has to due with system memory limitations (RAM memory).
The systems with the least amount of memory are last gen consoles.
Xbox Series S only has 10GB of memory compared to 16GB for PS5 and Series X.
