Ads Are Now On Xbox Live :-/

[Rainbow Man]

What difference does it make if it's a standalone application?

Difference is - of course - I don't see the ads if I don't run the app. Duh.

The dashboard is not a standalone app. It's the console's own firmware.

You never have to see if if you would rather boot into your games.

I don't WANT to seeit (I never liked it in the first place coz I think the layout and implementation sucks) but to access the sloppy marketplace I have to. And to check messages and my profile and other stuff I have to. Again duh.

It's annoying when you're so remarkably unwilling to acknowledge other peoples' right to a differing opinion to your won.

I don't see you complaining about game ads and movie ads in teh same way

It's because we've not discussed that! I might mention that I don't have to enter the movie theater until the ads have already been screened. And that I would never accept ads being served to me in-game. I wouldn't buy such a game. If we were to create such a topic that is.

why complain about an ad over Axe body spray?

Jeez you just don't get it do you.

BECAUSE, I don't like being slapped with ads in the face where they don't belong!

And no. I don't agree that ads belong anywhere anytime the maker decides either.

Home is no different imo

Dio you have to run sony's home to access the online store? No. Or change your console settings? No. Or...

Well you see. It's not the same fucking thing at all.

Home is some gimmicky thing they're going to finance indirectly through ads while MS makes customers pay through the nose for what competitors get for free and irritate them with ads at the same time. WTG? No.

Just because it's free doesn't mean they can spam you with ads! See how foolish that sounds both ways?

It sounds reasonable one way and foolish the other. I'd agree with THAT.

you are paying for the service, you already answered your question. Once again just because you pay for something doesn't mean it's going to be add free.

I can read. I just don't accept the validity of your argument. Repeating yourself doesn't give your position extra credibility you know.

It's called targeting a demographic. you don't see ads on there for pantyhose or depends diapers do you?

Because women or people with babies don't play the 360? Ha ha I got news for you..

Maybe MS shoudl think over its demographics prioritization then. If for no other reason I hear there's a new guy in town called Wii and people with pantyhose and kids definitely play with him.

to me a it sounds like you and a few others are just complaining for the sake of complaining.

I could say to me it sounds like you're jumping in knee-jerk defense of microsoft and their decisions but that wouldn't be very constructive.

I assure you I'm not complaining just for the sake of it but rather because it's my honest opinion ads in paid online services suck.

Peace.

 

[Qroach]

Difference is - of course - I don't see the ads if I don't run the app. Duh.

The dashboard is not a standalone app. It's the console's own firmware.

Despite what you think the dashboard it self is an application. sitting on top of the OS.

I don't WANT to seeit (I never liked it in the first place coz I think the layout and implementation sucks) but to access the sloppy marketplace I have to. And to check messages and my profile and other stuff I have to. Again duh.

Geez I mean seriously if you don't like the dashboard that's one thing. Sounds to me like you don't like your xbox ( if you even have one) what's your gamertag btw?

It's annoying when you're so remarkably unwilling to acknowledge other peoples' right to a differing opinion to your won.

What's more "Annoying" IMO is people that complain about all sorts of stuff and sit there and blow hot air over things that inconsequential...

BECAUSE, I don't like being slapped with ads in the face where they don't belong!

This ad was there on the original xbox live dashboard. It's not slapping you in the face, you're basically whining about this.

And no. I don't agree that ads belong anywhere anytime the maker decides either.

Obviously you haven't been reading my posts.

Dio you have to run sony's home to access the online store? No. Or change your console settings? No. Or...

Well you see. It's not the same fucking thing at all.

I don't think you know what you have to do to access the online store or change console settings while in Home. You're jumping to conclusions and defending something you clearly have no experience with. That doesn't make sense imo.

Home is some gimmicky thing they're going to finance indirectly through ads while MS makes customers pay through the nose for what competitors get for free and irritate them with ads at the same time. WTG? No.

I can read. I just don't accept the validity of your argument. Repeating yourself doesn't give your position extra credibility you know.

You've yet to support your argument with anything more then whining about something you don't like. Not very constructive as I provided my reasoning for not agreeing with you.

 

[joker454]

I have NEVER figured out why people praise Xbl so much...[snip]...That being said, im absolutely amazed how bad online with Sony is right now....

You asked and answered your own question in the same post XBL will be free one day, but only when the other console free online services catch up.

 

[pipo]

...so the $60 truly is only going towards online play, which does offer nothing more PSN.

Apart from some fancy background stuff (match-making etc.) you're right.

It doesn't bother me at all though. I think it works great. I don't feel the need for dedicated servers either and people who claim Live is laggy should have a talk with their ISP.

I'm sitting here playing with my mate who is on the other side of the planet. No probs at all - and I'm not talking Uno.

Re: ads - don't care. It would be nice if it would make the service cheaper though.

 

[soylent]

Guess you dont watch cable TV Or go to the movies. Or buy magazines. Or the paper.

Check, check, check and check. ;-) (I read the free news paper Metro on the subway or bus some times, but I don't much mind or notice the ads.).

The traditional ad business may be fighting a losing battle, people are becomming increasingly busy and the number of different things and brands have been increasing for a long time. Nobody cares what brand of laundry detergent they buy, you cannot shout loud enough that people care if it has blue crystals or comes in a green box.

As ads become more prolific people become increasingly jaded and increasingly better at ignoring ads that don't stand out of the crowd. The the traditional response is bigger, longer, louder, more audacious, more frequent ads; competing with other brands about interrupting people who don't care about you.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

It doesn't bother me at all though. I think it works great. I don't feel the need for dedicated servers either and people who claim Live is laggy should have a talk with their ISP.

Do you play any shooting games on XBL? Specifically games that have a server side netcode, (meaning the host acts like a server), try playing R6:Vegas, GR:AW2, CoD2 etc, when people with 512kb\s upload connections try to host 16 player matches, and tell me it doesn't lag.

 

[Titanio]

It doesn't bother me at all though. I think it works great. I don't feel the need for dedicated servers either and people who claim Live is laggy should have a talk with their ISP.

I would not pass the buck onto the (paying!) consumer so easily. In fact you could perhaps only reasonably do so if there were in fact dedicated servers. Your own connection might be fine, but you're still vulnerable to crappy experiences because other people's connections may not be so good.

 

[Todd33]

It doesn't bother me at all though. I think it works great. I don't feel the need for dedicated servers either and people who claim Live is laggy should have a talk with their ISP.

I guess you don't actually play these P2P games then. Once you get some person hosting with a bad connection or too many players then lag is inevitable. Dedicated servers are great, no lag, join the game at any time, etc. See Resistance 40 person matches or the Battlefield series.

 

[pipo]

Do you play any shooting games on XBL? Specifically games that have a server side netcode, (meaning the host acts like a server), try playing R6:Vegas, GR:AW2, CoD2 etc, when people with 512kb\s upload connections try to host 16 player matches, and tell me it doesn't lag.

Of course it does, and for these games the publisher could consider setting up servers. It doesn't have anything to do with the Live service though, as some people are saying. In these cases hosts should be more aware of what they're trying to do, or even better, the game should be aware...

With bandwidth still rising, these problems will eventually disappear though, and IMO P2P has one major advantage: it will always work (Ken K. agrees with me on this one ). Servers will be shut down sooner or later.

Just my 2 cents.

I guess you don't actually play these P2P games then.

Bzzzt. Have you ever tried Live by the way?

/rhetorical

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Of course it does, and for these games the publisher could consider setting up servers. It doesn't have anything to do with the Live service though, as some people are saying. In these cases hosts should be more aware of what they're trying to do, or even better, the game should be aware...

So you think that the publisher, should for say a popular game like R6:V or Gears of War, which has up to 100k players at online at once, on a good day, should spend somewhere around $ 3.75 million yearly on dedicated servers?

Instead of having MS paying for dedicated servers from their XBL money?

 

[pipo]

Sure. Those are game related issues. On top of that the server side of the software isn't off-the-shelf either.

 

[Tap In]

So you think that the publisher, should for say a popular game like R6:V or Gears of War, which has up to 100k players at online at once, on a good day, should spend somewhere around $ 3.75 million yearly on dedicated servers?

Instead of having MS paying for dedicated servers from their XBL money?

what?

that's how it works on PSN and XBL.

In the games where there are dedicated servers, they are provided by the Publisher, not the PSN nor XBL. You do realize that PSN is NOT a dedicated server only service right? Some games (and many more in the future) will be P2P. It's is up to the publisher and right now sony (as the publisher of R:FoM and Motorstorm for example) has chosen to set up servers for several of their games... not all games. Just as XBL is not a P2p only service. On the XBL side EA, SEGA and Activision have all set up dedicated server games. It's also possible that the Pubs with dedicated Xbox Live servers are getting some subsidies from XBL. I thought I read that regarding EA.

unless I'm missing your point?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

what?

that's how it works on PSN and XBL.

And some PC titles too. GuildWars runs on custom servers without monthly subscription fees. So it's not unreasonable to expect publishers to provider the custom servers, and many do already.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

what?

that's how it works on PSN and XBL.

In the games where there are dedicated servers, they are provided by the Publisher, not the PSN nor XBL. You do realize that PSN is NOT a dedicated server only service right? Some games (and many more in the future) will be P2P. It's is up to the publisher and right now sony (as the publisher of R:FoM and Motorstorm for example) has chosen to set up servers for several of their games... not all games. Just as XBL is not a P2p only service. On the XBL side EA, SEGA and Activision have all set up dedicated server games. It's also possible that the Pubs with dedicated Xbox Live servers are getting some subsidies from XBL. I thought I read that regarding EA.

unless I'm missing your point?

You are missing your point, i do know that there are dedicated servers for some games on XBL and PSN, i know this. My point is, is it fair to put all the costs from dedicated servers in the publishers hands?

Is it fair to expect a publisher to pick up the tab for dedicated servers (which would be a significant cost for the publisher), when XBL is earning $250 millions a year without providing you with much more than the ability to connect to another user?

The reason why most of the games on XBL are not having dedicated servers, is because the publisher doesn' t want to spend all that money, would online for their game be better? Certainly, but its costing a lot of money.

 

[Todd33]

Bzzzt. Have you ever tried Live by the way?

Yes, I'm on my second year of Gold. This has little to do with Live, we are talking about peer-2-peer gaming. Asking one lowly console to host a game for 8+ people is dangerous. If Live and P2P is so lagless, where are the 32 player P2P games? Dedicated servers are the only solution that I know of and Live should provide some sort of dynamic (based on popularity) support for dedicated servers for all games. Sure 4 v 4 is fun for <insert game title>, but maybe we can have a few 12 v 12 games - it's all about options.

Otherwise Live is just a cash cow flashy front end with ads.

 

[Tap In]

Is it fair to expect a publisher to pick up the tab for dedicated servers (which would be a significant cost for the publisher), when XBL is earning ....

well neither of us knows for sure what XBL is "earning" and also, do you know for sure that XBL does not have arrangements for a partial subsidizing of dedicated servers if Pubs want to do so?

I do not know the specifics and I'm not sure if they've been made public to anyone, but it is not out of the realm of the possibility that it is not already happening.

 

[scooby_dooby]

well neither of us knows for sure what XBL is "earning" and also, do you know for sure that XBL does not have arrangements for a partial subsidizing of dedicated servers if Pubs want to do so?

I do not know the specifics and I'm not sure if they've been made public to anyone, but it is not out of the realm of the possibility that it is not already happening.

What we do know, at the very least, is that Sony is providing a free service AND dedicated hosts for their games.

This should be enough to make anyone think twice about what MS is delivering and whether it's worth the money.

Sure the universal friends list/integrated OS is great, but you paid for that when you purchased the machine, it's part of the base console.

 

[Tap In]

What we do know, at the very least, is that Sony is providing a free service AND dedicated hosts for their games.

This should be enough to make anyone think twice about what MS is delivering and whether it's worth the money.

Sure the universal friends list/integrated OS is great, but you're not really paying for that anyways, it's part of the base console.

so far... for SOME games (to date the ones they publish) in an effort to try and measure up to XBL since they fall short in the feature dept.

should MS be doing the same? YES... I think some MS 1st parties should be on dedicated servers. However, to just point to XBL as a windfall profit machine and that they should be offering it and don't is beyond our reasonable knowledge of the financial details. None of us knows the costs that MS has incurred to implement, upgrade and service the XBL.

OTOH, HALO2 net code and matchmaking host system is so good as I expect H3 to be that P2P seems just fine for that size of a game.

 

[valioso]

What we do know, at the very least, is that Sony is providing a free service AND dedicated hosts for their games..

every single leaked picture I saw from the home beta has an ad in it.

 

[Todd33]

every single leaked picture I saw from the home beta has an ad in it.

What does Home have to do with it?