Anyone else wonder if MS is hosting Halo 2 games a la Socom 2? Given the unorthodox 'battleground' game search feature, and that the games are pretty much lag free I really have to wonder if MS finally bit the bullet and decided to do what was necessary to make Halo 2 a hit online?
MS _finally_ hosting games? Halo 2?
- Thread starter zurich
- Start date
Least they could do considering that they will rake it in with Halo2.
Not to mention the fact that they charge for XBL while SOCOM2 is free.
Does the Xbox and PS2 APIs have codes for writing server-side code?
What kind of hardware would host these console games? Is the server code running some instance of the game or just some transaction powerhouse that just routes packets between console clients running the games?
Not to mention the fact that they charge for XBL while SOCOM2 is free.
Does the Xbox and PS2 APIs have codes for writing server-side code?
What kind of hardware would host these console games? Is the server code running some instance of the game or just some transaction powerhouse that just routes packets between console clients running the games?
But honestly what does this have to do with anything? I mean it doesn't necessarily change the way the game is played. Also people host games so they can change the rules as they please.
You could say the charge is for the removal of cheaters. I'd gladly pay for that.
It depends on what you mean. Xbox live is an API in a sense that you woud have to hook into even if your game used game servers or not. Sony also has a loosely created API, but not specifically for somehting like this. The server side code will be up to the developer to create (if they really need to). I still don't see why you would need a physical server for a game like this. What benefit does it buy you? what about creating your own custom games?
It all depends on how many players you want to support per server and the requirement of that game. sometimes you are running an instance of a game onthe server side (for instance an AI client that spawns AI within an arena) however that it a pretty complicated soloution IMO.
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
I'd play $50 a year just to play Halo 2 online, let alone all the other great games for Live like DoA:U, GR2, SC
T, and MechAssault 2.
I don't care about the hosting issue, because Halo 2 plays beautifully online and I feel I absolutely got my money's worth from Live.
T, and MechAssault 2.I don't care about the hosting issue, because Halo 2 plays beautifully online and I feel I absolutely got my money's worth from Live.
Halo 2 is a great example of p2p working out well.
What needs to happen is more upload speed from DSL and Cable providers. The 128k standard needs to be tripled to 384k.
I really like LIVE. It's a great service well worth the money. Microsoft hit a homerun with LIVE.
What needs to happen is more upload speed from DSL and Cable providers. The 128k standard needs to be tripled to 384k.
I really like LIVE. It's a great service well worth the money. Microsoft hit a homerun with LIVE.
Evil_Cloud
Veteran
ChryZ said:
You can host your own games, but there is automated matchmaking as well.
Do you think MS covers its XBL costs with its current pricing?
Or is the current pricing kept relatively low because MS needs to keep XBL churn down and grow the subscriber base? Especially in the face of a rival with a bigger market share which is not charging for online games?
Because really, it would be technically possible to make online games for the Xbox while bypassing XBL entirely, wouldn't it?
Or is the current pricing kept relatively low because MS needs to keep XBL churn down and grow the subscriber base? Especially in the face of a rival with a bigger market share which is not charging for online games?
Because really, it would be technically possible to make online games for the Xbox while bypassing XBL entirely, wouldn't it?
Evil_Cloud
Veteran
wco81 said:
If you think Microsoft makes a profit out of Xbox Live you're terribly, terribly wrong... They are taking heavy losses for years, which are now nearing almost 3 billion dollar. Only a juggernaut like Microsoft can keep this up.
Yes I think the amount of money MS is spending on xbox live outweighs how much they are collecting from it.
Technically possible? yes. Would MS approve a game that did that? no. I don't see the benefit you'd get from bypassing xbox live other than it being free. Xbox live isn't that expensive and it's worth teh fee just to keep the hacking cheaters from wrecking the experience.
That was my point.
I didn't think $50 a year covered it.
Even though they don't have dedicated servers to host games.
Like I said, if Sony wasn't free, they might have been more likely to try to raise their prices a bit.
But I don't know how much they could raise it before a lot of gamers decide they're asking too much.
I didn't think $50 a year covered it.
Even though they don't have dedicated servers to host games.
Like I said, if Sony wasn't free, they might have been more likely to try to raise their prices a bit.
But I don't know how much they could raise it before a lot of gamers decide they're asking too much.
Evil_Cloud said:
If maintaining XBL servers and taking subscriptions had caused such a huge loss, all MMORPG would go out of business.
If someone distributes an XBL emulator just like some Blizzard server project which was sued IIRC, the XBL profit diminishes anyway, but a profit is still a profit though it may be smaller. Then the net loss grows bigger.
I don't know about cheaters but there are a lot of "cheesers" on XBL from what I heard. A single screen name doesn't deter people from behaving badly and the feedback system doesn't apparently put enough of a stigma on bad characters.
EA is trying its Premium Pass thing, which is basically an underhanded way to collect billing info.
But that will no more guarantee that people won't try to cheat or behave poorly.
EA is trying its Premium Pass thing, which is basically an underhanded way to collect billing info.
But that will no more guarantee that people won't try to cheat or behave poorly.
OPPs sorry man. I totally typed that backwards. I think the amount MS is collecting out weighs the aount they are spending keeping live running. I've been saying this since those intial numbers regarding how much it costs to develop live were floating around (some websites claimed 500 million - 1 billion for live) and I simply couldn't see it costig that much.
The costs for running a service like xbox live aren't all that differnt thwn runinig services for A MMORPG. You pay for the bandwidth needed to access data in the database, updates and content downloads, but you don't have to pay for bandwidth connected to running your own "game" servers. In fact I wouldn't be suprised if xbox live didn't cost as much as everquest to keep it running.
Not all live games come with lan. Lan play is an option developers can provide outside of xbox live. It's not a part of the service however.
