• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

Company attempts record breaking multiplayer game


AKA Ass-Bandit
Non-profit tech developers MuchDifferent will be hosting a one-time browser based FPS that hopes to break records by allowing for 1000 players to play in the same match, on the same battlefield. This will apparently be made possible by hosting the battlefield on "8 single-threaded Unity Game Servers that each handle a section of the battlefield", while using a "dynamic traffic router / load balancer, PikkoServer that divides the battlefield between the game servers and glues the result together for the clients, many times each second". If this works and handles well when put into practice, this could open the way for immense multiplayer games; instead of the small battles we see in Call of Duty, Gears of War, etc., we could have battles made out of platoons, or even small wars.

The event/game itself is called Man vs. Machine, with gamers playing as the bright red, grenade-launcher carrying men, and games developers throughout the industry playing as the huge, cold blue, laser firing machines. It will be held on the 29th of this month at 2pm CET (1pm GMT). There will only be 1000 server slots, dolled out on a first-come, first-served basis, with slots being freed up as and when people drop out.

Here is a link to the event website, complete with countdown timer:
1000 Player FPS, World Record - Man vs. Machine

And here is a trailer for the event that probably shows off what the game looks like (yes, I know it looks like arse, but it's a bleeding browser game that will be hosting 1000 players simultaneously):
World Record - 29 Jan 2012 on Vimeo


Haters gonna hate.
I like the concept, but I definitely will not participate. Records like these are pretty cool, though. For example, my one friend here at college used to hold the world record for consecutive hours playing Guitar Hero. He was passed by two Finnish guys.


Well-Known Member
It's a very interesting concept. But honestly what's the point?

I don't see any games becoming popular that have teams larger than even 40 (which seems a little high) teams of 1000 doesn't sound fun at all. I prefer for games to have much smaller teams that are more manageable.

I don't think that I will be participating either.


AKA Ass-Bandit
The point is that it's pushing the boundaries of what we can do in games with the right hardware. This may not result in really large games, but with the kit they're using, we'd be able to demand more from our online games.

For instance, going back to that 1000 player match, how about instead of doing that, players stick with 40 player matches. But the match would be one shard on a battlefield made up of tens, or hundreds of shards. Players would be able to look over and see how the overall battle is going on either side of them.

Don't just dismiss what's going on here because it's only being used for a single 1000 player match. It is more than likely this server set up is capable of a lot more, especially when put into the hands of developers and technicians much more smarter and better trained than us.


Son of Liberty
I don't see any games becoming popular that have teams larger than even 40 (which seems a little high) teams of 1000 doesn't sound fun at all. I prefer for games to have much smaller teams that are more manageable.
Ever play Mag?

Mag I believe is one of the current record holders for something like this;

- - Explore Records - Guinness World Records

256 people in a Console FPS.

Mag was really really good, far better than the COD franchise albeit overshadowed by COD's McCult like following.

1000 people may seem big, but you'd be amazed at how it all works out. With the 256, teams were split up into 128, then broke down into 8---> 32---> 128 The Platoon leader would be in charge of 1 group of 32 (4 Platoon leaders per team) , while the Squad Leaders were in charge of their groups of 8 (16 Squad Leaders). Company Leaders lead the full 128. Each leadership had particular perks.

But the cool thing about Mag was tehre were so many fights within Fights. Sure at the start, you really dont feel like you're playing on a 128 man team.... at most you started with 2 squads working together to capture an objective. Then those Squads would collapse into a Platoon... and that Platoon would collapse into the other Platoon, then towards the end of the game, it was beautiful chaos when you've got 2 Companies duking it out heads up 128 vs 128.

I would be down for a 500 vs 500 game. If it held true to the way Mag did it and/or improved on it. Hell yeah.

The best part about a game like that... that is just SOOOO big, is it cant be ruined by 1 troll, like the 16 vs 16 man games can in all the other FPS's. The game cant be one by just 1 person either... not when you've got 128 other enemies protecting a target. MAG took real team work, or at minimum a bunch of Controlled Chaos in a concentrated spot. No 1 person could ever win a game of Domination in Mag for an entire Platoon.
Last edited: