Differences between xbl and psn(online only)

[betan]

I'm not sure if Sony has something similar for the filtering, but maybe they do.



Well, I'm not clear on what you mean by "whatever".. can you actually name an example

just look at dev comments regarding UT3 mods, Trials hd etc.
There is also the case for Forge or even simple stuff like Burnout Paradise.

I'm surprised you have such an issue with the statement XBL is much more restrictive.

 

[patsu]

I noticed that you included operational in your end statement saying that they are opposite. Is there anything in place in either network that hampers the connection? ex- are there any extra "hops" between the systems?

If im hosting a game i understand that the other players in my lobby are connected to me but are there any added stops in between us(other than what your isp already has in place) or no?

Oh, I meant business operation.

If you look at the hops, it depends on the hosting environments' peering agreements, and how many data centers the platform owners have around the world. At this level, there are some differences but it will take time to map out. The differences are partially masked by the CDN provider. The content are cached by the CDN servers and served from one as close to you as possible.

There are some centralized servers for authentication/authorization services and also to maintain lists of games for match-making/searches.

Yes, they can be a source of headaches (downtime, choked servers) when everyone swarm to login at the same time during peak period. I don't know how PSN addresses this issue but it is a basic problem both networks need to overcome.

EDIT:
... which reminds me. deepbrown, did you have a chance to ask NaughtyDog how they use Cloud Computing in Uncharted 2 ?

 

[AlNom]

I'm surprised you have such an issue with the statement XBL is much more restrictive.

I don't (where exactly do you see that I have an issue? Just because I'm asking a simple question you keep avoiding?) but you are definitely not helping the discussion or answering the OP's questions on the matter. That I even have to continue asking for clarification is a rather poor display on your part. What exactly am I to garner from "whatever" ?


If your intention is to provide half-answers that don't contribute to the thread, why bother?

 

[Alkohallick]

In General:

The XBL approach results in better consistency of experience. You can usually expect the same basic experience from game to game and developers should have an easier time creating a working implementation...The PSN approach is put more of an onus on the developer to build their online component....

When you state game to game do you mean different games ie-halo3 to cod or just match to match?

So from a developer standpoint the online tools are already in place for xbl, cant they just copy that format for ps3 port or is it proprietary info?

at this point in console life dont most devs have a working system in place for ps3 or is extra effort still needed?

so basically from a player standpoint either network normally provides a similar experience(aside from specific features of said network).

 

[patsu]

Title to title.

They may share the same P2P working model, but the integration approach of the net code may be different.
e.g., In Unreal Tournment, the PS3 version uses something similar to the PC version, while the Xbox one uses XBL specific code.

The bigger devs should already have something they can reuse. At the same time, they are also free to evolve/innovate based on their specific needs. The smaller guys could probably use some help here. There are third party middleware providers who can help for a fee.

From a player's standpoint, he/she will be more affected by the UI, the usage policies, and the business/payment model. The mechanics are probably less interesting to him/her. In P2P model, he/she will be affected by the other players' network performance, for both PSN and XBL. The dedicated server arrangement is more pleasant (*sniff* *sniff* [looks at RFOM]), but few games use it.

 

[betan]

I don't (where exactly do you see that I have an issue? Just because I'm asking a simple question you keep avoiding?) but you are definitely not helping the discussion or answering the OP's questions on the matter. That I even have to continue asking for clarification is a rather poor display on your part. What exactly am I to garner from "whatever" ?


If your intention is to provide half-answers that don't contribute to the thread, why bother?

My bad, I shouldn't have contributed to the thread with full of original answers totally different from my half one.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I think you missed the question more than anything! XBL's experience is not a result of the infrastructure which is what Alkohallic's was asking about...

not the features included or any type of matchmaking

MS's SDK is almost entirely about user experience, the features and the types of matchmaking!

I don't think anyone (who can talk) knows about particulars of any games net-code. I supose the only difference within the scope of Alkohallic's question is that whatever MS provide as netcode is what every game will use, meaning connection quality will be no worse and no better than that standard. In contrast, PSN titles may have diabolical netcode or be able to do their own clever, special thing. eg. Sacred 2 is very buggy online with PSN suffering from crashouts, whereas Fat Princess can shift host dynamically to preserve a game when the host leaves (although for all I know that feature can be integrated into XBL titles through the SDK!).

 

[Alkohallick]

......In P2P model, he/she will be affected by the other players' network performance, for both PSN and XBL.......

How so? Would the host be affected or the other people in the lobby?

 

[betan]

How so? Would the host be affected or the other people in the lobby?

Depends.
p2p or not, all interactions with the player with poor connection are affected.
For p2p, in addition to that, if the one with the poor connection is the host, all interactions are affected.

Plus, since bandwidth requirement for hosts and clients are different, in p2p connection problems are more likely to be amplified as one of the players has to be host.
That is, a connection may not be a bad connection with dedicated servers, but it may be so for p2p hosting.

 

[patsu]

I believe in a dedicated server set up, the server bandwidth is within the developer's control. So the average latency (to the host) tends to be better than a full P2P system.
EDIT: Ah okay, you explained it better in your second paragraph.

I think you missed the question more than anything! XBL's experience is not a result of the infrastructure which is what Alkohallic's was asking about...

From his follow up questions, it seems that he also needs some sort of high level framework to interpret the answers in a coherent way.

 

[Alkohallick]

Depends.
p2p or not, all interactions with the player with poor connection are affected.
For p2p, in addition to that, if the one with the poor connection is the host, all interactions are affected....

Thanks for everybodys help!! I think I have just a few more questions.....

***poor connection guy is not host in this question***
So I understand that everybody notices the player with the poor connection as having a poor connection(skipping/jumping about) in p2p but how does the guy with the poor connection percieve everybody else?

 

[betan]

Thanks for everybodys help!! I think I have just a few more questions.....

***poor connection guy is not host in this question***
So I understand that everybody notices the player with the poor connection as having a poor connection(skipping/jumping about) in p2p but how does the guy with the poor connection percieve everybody else?

Again, it depends.

If the guy is having only upload issues (for example, daughter generously sharing her mp3 collection with the world), he will see the rest of the players just fine.*

If the guy is having only download issues (wife streaming HD movies), he will see everyone laggy and jumpy, but everyone will see him just fine. *

If both directions are throttled (dialup, real network issues etc.), he will see everyone jumpy as everyone will see him as such.

*Extreme cases of the first two actually lead to the third result because all connections requires some sort of handshake to continue.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That's assuming a speed issue rather than 'distance' issue. If the player is 142 internet nodes away from the server with a ping of 400 ms, he'll be bouncing around in everyone else's game, and they'll be bouncing around in his game, no?

 

[JPT]

That's assuming a speed issue rather than 'distance' issue. If the player is 142 internet nodes away from the server with a ping of 400 ms, he'll be bouncing around in everyone else's game, and they'll be bouncing around in his game, no?

Speed, if you do not have the bandwidth available the packets can arrive late or not at all.
Distance, the packets arrive late. Ie both situations ends up with same result.

Basically if you do not have any information to work with, you have to guess what the next move was. So if your prediction code is good, it will compensate some. But still you have constrained window to work it and the delay/loss exceeds that, well you are out of luck.

This is all based on assumptions from working with voip and iptv and fiddling around with Q2 years ago.

 

[Asher]

The basic network infrastructure is the same. Assuming they have not switched, they also used the same CDN provider (e.g., for downloading content).

There's no way they use the same CDN, now or ever, at least in Canada. PS3 downloads have always been significantly slower than XBL downloads no matter what part of the country I've lived in.

 

[patsu]

I did a quick check. In 2008, Microsoft has started to build its own CDN network using internal technologies plus those licensed from Limelight Networks:
http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2008/01/11/microsoft-building-own-cdn-network/
MS is (was ?) also a customer of Akamai.

Meanwhile, Sony continues to use Limelight Networks and Akamai as their CDN providers:

* Limelight Networks’ Content Delivery Technology Adopted for PLAYSTATION®3 and PSP® (PlayStation®Portable) System Software Updates:
http://www.limelightnetworks.com/20...playstation®portable-system-software-updates/

* Akamai to Speed Content Delivery for PlayStation 3, Wii Online Services
http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2006/1...elivery-for-playstation-3-wii-online-services

 

[Asher]

They may have had different tiers of service or something in that case. The difference was very noticable.

 

[patsu]

Perhaps, but I have heard some people getting faster PS3 download in some areas. So.... YMMV ?

 

[Asher]

Perhaps, but I have heard some people getting faster PS3 download in some areas. So.... YMMV ?

Perhaps. No one I know has experienced that. Maybe it's different in Europe.

 

[patsu]

...or MS may lag behind Limelight/Akamai in some areas while they are in the middle of building out their own ?