Playstation "Live"

[zurich]

I've been an XBL subscriber since beta, but I haven't really used it much (apart from Steel Batallion LoC) because it's virtually unplayable. My connection is awesome, I only connect to the 'best' servers, and even then the lag is worse than Netquake. Hell, a QuakeWorld server on a cable modem provides FAR better playability. I don't know if it's because there's no dedicated servers or what, but the entire service has been a write off for me. I only keep subscribing to 'support the initiative'. Apart from MotoGP 1/2, I have not had a single smooth/lag-free game on Xbox Live (except when hosting) out of any of the games played (MechAssault, PGR2, RTCW, Unreal Championship, Steel Batallion LoC).

It's funny, if you look at the FAQ on MS's XBL page, they say that the reason PC games are smoother is because people set up dedicated servers on T3+s without system admins knowing. While this may be true, it's not an excuse.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

My experience has been the opposite - totally smooth.

 

[speng]

Some games require a subscription fee: MMOGs

Others Socom II etc can be made available for free.

In the future Socom III might be available for free, but certain content and tournaments (clan games/ladder/etc) will be offered for a price.

Making the interface easy for developers to plug into and for users to be familiar with will help everyone.

I don't see Sony charging for it's "Live".

Paying for "Live" + paying a "MMOG" fee or 2 is a bit much. Sony can just skim some of the money from games that use subscription services.

They would probably get more players in the long run.

Speng.

 

[zurich]

My experience has been the opposite - totally smooth.

It is "smooth", but not "smooth" enough for a fairly oldschool and competitive online gamer such as myself. I can see the service being enough for the masses, but IMO is unacceptable.

It's like hoping on a server with a 110 ping - it's "alright", but not enough for the demanding types.

 

[Qroach]

I've never had a problem with xbox live service in my area. I've got a kickass fast connection though (cogeco cable).

I don't know how you can see a ping number as most xbox live games don't show that, and who would you be pinging?

 

[zurich]

I've never had a problem with xbox live service in my area. I've got a kickass fast connection though (cogeco cable).

I don't know how you can see a ping number as most xbox live games don't show that, and who would you be pinging?

I was speaking figuratively.

Anyhow, I think the issue isn't so much the bandwidth of a P2P network (though this is significant, most upstreams are pretty sad), but rather the burden it places on the host Xbox to play the game AND run the server.

Try taking a PC game and running a dedicated server then connect to it on the same machine - not pretty.

 

[Guden Oden]

Um, if they make you pay for peer-to-peer online play, what exactly are you then paying for? What is it they're giving you in return for your money?

Matchmaking, stored stats, tournaments, prizes and a ranking system.

Yes, I know of these 'features' but what if I'm not interested in any of that? What if I just want to play the game online against my mates?

I can be without prizes in tournaments I'll never even take part in. Let those who want to tournament pay for it then, why should I have to sponsor them as well?

Nothing, that's what. That's what you call a 'rip-off' in plain English.

Nonesense.

Alright, so you think it's cool paying for nothing then. Okay, now we got that settled. By the way, I got a bridge here you might be interested in buying...

As I said before, what difference does it make if it's peer to peer, or client user relationship when it invovles paying for it?

If it's peer-to-peer, it means no outside resources are consumed other than what the user is already paying for. So why would anyone honestly want to pay for it?

You wouldn't pay restaurant prices for food you cook yourself in your own kitchen, right? Paying for P2P games is just like that.

That's just it, to the end user a peer to peer or client server just doesn't matter and for most the majority of online games, you just don't need dedicated servers that users can't control.

Um, well cheating gets "slightly" more difficult with dedicated servers of course, and that might be something worth paying for (though Blizzard for example doesn't charge anything for their network, which is much bigger than Live I might add).

Why anyone should have to pay for running a server on THEIR OWN BOX, via THEIR OWN CONNECTION, is totally beyond me... Though I guess it's a nice license for MS to print free money.

I don't buy their reasoning though, nor yours either.

 

[Qroach]

Yes, I know of these 'features' but what if I'm not interested in any of that?What if I just want to play the game online against my mates?

Talk about a contradictory stement. How are you not interested in "matchmaking" if you want to play online against your "mates"??? That's part of what matchmaking allows you to do! find your mates and play a game either by making a private server or waiting for them to use the buddie list. You can see what games they are playing when they are online. You really haven't played xbox live, and/or used it enough to form a proper opinion on it. I can tell this by the things you've stated in this thread. Things only someone that didn't knwo what it was about would use in reasoning against it.

So, I really don't see why you feel the need to troll this thread.

Alright, so you think it's cool paying for nothing then. Okay, now we got that settled. By the way, I got a bridge here you might be interested in buying...

Quit trying to start a flame thread. What xbox live provides is hardly what I'd call "nothing". I'd say you get what you pay for, and you're getting basically nothing. I'm getting the works with online console gaming.

If it's peer-to-peer, it means no outside resources are consumed other than what the user is already paying for. So why would anyone honestly want to pay for it?

Your argument is extremly weak. You obviously are just trolling as you didn't read any of the other posts in this thread. It was already explained that not all the games on xbox live are peer to peer. Most games allow the payer to act as a server and have gamer(s) connect to thier xbox. It's not only one on one games.

Why pay for it? how many times does this have to be stated. Matchmaking, stored stats, tournaments, prizes, a ranking system, buddies list, voice over IP, instant messaging. I really don't understand how you can't understand that, unless of course, you simply don't want to.

You wouldn't pay restaurant prices for food you cook yourself in your own kitchen, right? Paying for P2P games is just like that.

Quit trying to use foolish analogies please

Um, well cheating gets "slightly" more difficult with dedicated servers of course, and that might be something worth paying for (though Blizzard for example doesn't charge anything for their network, which is much bigger than Live I might add).

How does cheating get more difficult with dedicated servers? There's always ways around that. Btw, there isn't a whole lot of cheating going on with xbox live (if there's any at all) and yet you wouldn't pay for it, so what does that say abotu your reasoning regarding blizzard? IMO it says you're being completely unreasonable. You need to GO enducate yourself about xbox live before rating abotu how it sucks.

There's even a system for reporting troublesome players with xbox live. Blizzards site doesn't run dedicated servers either, and it ONLY works with their games (the few that there are). DUH. Xbox live has LOT's of supported games. If you wan tto go to blizzard.net and play teh same 4 games over and over again, be my guest.

Why anyone should have to pay for running a server on THEIR OWN BOX, via THEIR OWN CONNECTION, is totally beyond me... Though I guess it's a nice license for MS to print free money.

Then don't pay for it and don't play online with your console for all anyone cares. There... I guess that settles it.

I don't buy their reasoning though, nor yours either.

I could care less You're not using any reasoning at all from what I can see. The second you can develop a dedicated server technology that can automatically scale and run instances of itself, while automatically purchasing/adding additional server hardware to accomodate players as needed, then feel free to come back to this thread and tell us we're all idiots for paying for xbox live. In the meantime I'll be playing games online with my friends and joining games that are setup by the users peer-peer or client server.

If you want a service for free that runs only dedicated servers and can't scale up or down depending on the demand by users, then be my guest. I'll still be having WAY more fun with xbox live. Enjoyment is the key.

 

[PARANOiA]

Um, if they make you pay for peer-to-peer online play, what exactly are you then paying for? What is it they're giving you in return for your money?

Matchmaking, stored stats, tournaments, prizes and a ranking system.

Yes, I know of these 'features' but what if I'm not interested in any of that? What if I just want to play the game online against my mates?

Guden,

What you're asking for seems to be pure P2P which XBox Live! (and presumably Sony in the near future) is not offering. They are offering a plug and play (and pay) system for broadband users to have a single account, look for a mate by clicking on them, seeing if they're online, whether they're in-game (or another game), simple voice chat, etc etc.

What you want in P2P is currently available on ALL consoles through tunnelling software I believe. Now, most users (I would say 97%) wouldn't know how to configure that, or couldn't be bothered, and would rather pay a minimal fee for the privelage of leave it and forget.

Either way, I think this service is good, since it gets more bums in seats (albeit living room seats) to play me online. There's always a gamer to match me in PGR2, which there wouldn't be if I really had a P2P service without peer matching.

So, don't pay. Use tunnel software, and leave Live (and Sony Live!) to others. But I don't see the service as a negative at all, since you've got your way, and I have mine.

 

[Squeak]

Sonys online initiative is no mere copy of â€￾liveâ€￾: http://slashdot.org/articles/03/02/27/134258.shtml?tid=127

 

[Vince]

Sonys online initiative is no mere copy of â€￾liveâ€￾: http://slashdot.org/articles/03/02/27/134258.shtml?tid=127

Never saw that comming Wow, Linux and the OGSA/Globus... what an interesting microcosm the consoles are becoming.

 

[cthellis42]

I'd been wondering about that since a while back, but due to a lack of any information having come out since, I really don't think the "Butterfly initiative" (or whatever we want to call it) is what they're rolling out in the near term. Perhaps what they want to build towards, but for the time being they can roll out features without going that far yet. (They certainly shouldn't wait that long.) Butterfly hasn't been mentioned SINCE that Feb '03 piece, really, which is annoying--but typical as far as many company's projects go.

 

[Fox5]

Nope, we are going to bitch about Sony too ... charging for peer-to-peer gaming deserves it

What difference does it make if it's peer to peer or a client server setup, you're still playing online against other people. does having dedicated game servers make it more worth the money? Once again I'd ask "why" would it?

Vince, if you really think Sony is setting up a billing system only for the developers, I think you're looking at it wrong. Sony is setting up the billing for themselves first, and then any develoeprs that want to charge pay for play, can after that. I'd be willing to wager some large some of cash on the fact sony is going to setup their online network in way that almost emulates xbox live, right down to charging a yearly or month fee for access.

Dedicated servers mean that they are continually putting out more money, and it generally means more players at once and less lag.

And I'm spoiled by utilities like gamespy or battle.net, which offer similar functionality for free.

BTW, I think Phantasy Star Online is still peer to peer once you get into an actual game.

I would pay if the service showed some kind of commitment(frequent updates with new content, zero lag servers, stuff like that) or if I was interested in the games, but so far all the online console games are rather blah. Give me the triple AAA titles online and that might be enough to convince me to pay, just because the games are so good.

I suppose the current online services are better than what nintendo has. Discounting pso, all the lan games(using some sort of program to play online) are peer to peer which really increases the lag. 1080 probably has the best net code of all, and thankfully it only supports up to 4 players because about 4 players in the same region is probably all it could do without lag.(imagine playing a 16 player mario kart match, each player needs a ping of 50 each other to have a full speed game, it'd be like impossible)

Oh, and one of the modes on diablo 2 does run on dedicated servers. I know this because I could play against someone using the open characters and get zero lag, but if I played on the closed servers against the same person I had tons of lag.(the closed characters are stored server side)

Online console stuff is just lame because you get superior stuff on pc for free. Like every pc game now supports match making, plus there are online message boards for that stuff, and there are tons of free instant messengers.

 

[PARANOiA]

Sonys online initiative is no mere copy of â€￾liveâ€￾: http://slashdot.org/articles/03/02/27/134258.shtml?tid=127

Never saw that comming Wow, Linux and the OGSA/Globus... what an interesting microcosm the consoles are becoming.

This is fantastic news and news to me, certainly.

I have to say, this probably wouldn't have eventuated, at least this soon, without Live's presence. I hate having my favourite games splintered across four systems (including PC), but the competition really makes them scramble over each other to benefit the consumer sometimes.

 

[TTP]

Well, I've been told that on Xbox Live! if the host leaves the game all the other players get kicked off. Is this true? 'cos if it is it really sucks. What if the host decides it's time for a break or his connection gets a hit?

This would explain why there are no 16-players SOCOM-like games on Xbox. That would be crazy.

 

[PARANOiA]

Well, I've been told that on Xbox Live! if the host leaves the game all the other players get kicked off. Is this true? 'cos if it is it really sucks. What if the host decides it's time for a break or his connection gets a hit?

This would explain why there are no 16-players SOCOM-like games on Xbox. That would be crazy.

It's true :?

 

[Qroach]

Um, there are 16 player games on xbox live. Crimson skies can support 16 players, and there's a few others i can't recall.

I was playing PGR 2 and the server left the game, but everyone was still playing somehow, so it may not be a case for all games.

 

[TTP]

Oh I see. That's good.

 

[ChryZ]

I was playing PGR 2 and the server left the game, but everyone was still playing somehow, so it may not be a case for all games.

So paying Live subscriber have to host their own multi player games? Hm, guess people are ready to pay air-breathing-tax after all *rubbinghands*

 

[PARANOiA]

I was playing PGR 2 and the server left the game, but everyone was still playing somehow, so it may not be a case for all games.

So paying Live subscriber have to host their own multi player games? Hm, guess people are ready to pay air-breathing-tax after all *rubbinghands*

Troll..

I think this thread discussed what else Live users pay for