Question about Xbox Live multiplayer games

[KongRudi]

I were looking at the covers of a few 360 games the other day, and noticed something strange.

All the multiplayer games had only 4/8/12/16/18/22/24 players.

On PC and PS3 wich I have, this is not a issue - most of the games there have 32 or more players.

I assume Microsoft has set a number-limitation, since no games go above 24 players on 360, many games with big maps, and clans, would most likely be more fun for the gamers with more players. :-/

Do anyone here know why there can't be more players on 360-games, or if not - help me speculate why?
Could it be because of cross-game chat or some other features?

 

[vanquish]

Developers aren't interested in developing games with more than 24 players online for 360.

The only PS3 games with more than 24 players are PS3 exclusives like Warhawk, Resistance 1 & 2 and Killzone 2 (and MAG in the future).

That is probably the only reason for the disparity between the consoles, as Xbox Live largely has the better servers and online gameplay experience.

 

[Martin Eddy]

It's because Xbox Live uses P2P networking and relies on users being servers most of the time.

IMO it has to do with having a consistent and reliable experience. Live wouldn't be as popular as it is now if games allowed for 32 players but the performance was terrible. Better to limit it to ~16 and have good performance.

 

[woundingchaney]

Various titles on Live have had large amounts of people and used dedicated servers, though PSN exclusive titles do seem to focus on large battlefield type games that rely on dedicated servers.

I can think of a couple Live titles that use 50 people matches so they do have games that go above 24 players.

 

[2real4tv]

Various titles on Live have had large amounts of people and used dedicated servers, though PSN exclusive titles do seem to focus on large battlefield type games that rely on dedicated servers.

I can think of a couple Live titles that use 50 people matches so they do have games that go above 24 players.

Their is only one that goes above 50 and that is Fuel of War: Frontlines(I think that is the name)

 

[catisfit]

Xbox LIVE uses P2P networking (mainly), PSN uses dedicated servers.

Using your customers as servers limits you to their connections (upload) while they are also playing the game, whereas using dedicated servers basically allows you more headroom for players.

Some games on Xbox LIVE (Frontlines?) have a dedicated server option to get the numbers up beyond what P2P can provide. But it seems most are happy to use their customers as servers for free and stick to ~16 player online.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

1. PSN DOES NOT USE DEDICATED SERVERS only, it uses P2P in 95% of all games just like XBL.(or player hosting -> not technically the same thing as P2P depending on who you ask)

2. XBL is not limited to P2P. In fact most games have server side netcodes but does not have dedicated servers.

3. Dedicated server are not cheap on a large scale

The reason why most games on X360 AND PS3 have so few players is because P2P and non dedicated servers require the player (mostly the host) to have very high upload bandwidth for a lot of players, few people have enough bandwidth to host a 32-64 match and thus it would just be a lag fest.

Another reason is of course cost, P2P and non dedicated servers are free while dedicated servers costs money.

On PC and PS3 wich I have, this is not a issue - most of the games there have 32 or more players.

This is wrong. With the exception of four exclusive games there is no more 32+ player games on the PS3 than on the X360.

The only reason that some PS3 games have more players is because Resistance 1&2,Warhawk and KZ2 are exclusive titles that focus on large battles where Sony is paying for the costs of running the dedicated servers.

Do anyone here know why there can't be more players on 360-games, or if not - help me speculate why?
Could it be because of cross-game chat or some other features?

Its only because dedicated servers (which are needed for lag free 32+ player games) costs a lot of money, and there is no X360 exclusive that focuses on large scale multiplayer battles like Resistance for example.

Edit: Oh btw, Perfect Dark Zero (x360) supports 32player multiplayer p2p (lags like hell)

 

[2real4tv]

1. PSN DOES NOT USE DEDICATED SERVERS only, it uses P2P in 95% of all games just like XBL.

2. XBL is not limited to P2P. In fact most games have server side netcodes but does not have dedicated servers.

3. Dedicated server are not cheap on a large scale

The reason why most games on X360 AND PS3 have so few players is because P2P and non dedicated servers require the player (mostly the host) to have very high upload bandwidth for a lot of players, few people have enough bandwidth to host a 32-64 match and thus it would just be a lag fest.

Another reason is of course cost, P2P and non dedicated servers are free while dedicated servers costs money.



This is wrong. With the exception of four exclusive games there is no more 32+ player games on the PS3 than on the X360.

The only reason that some PS3 games have more players is because Resistance 1&2,Warhawk and KZ2 are exclusive titles that focus on large battles where Sony is paying for the costs of running the dedicated servers.




Its only because dedicated servers (which are needed for lag free 32+ player games) costs a lot of money, and there is no X360 exclusive that focuses on large scale multiplayer battles like Resistance for example.

Edit: Oh btw, Perfect Dark Zero (x360) supports 32player multiplayer p2p (lags like hell)

My question is what games does use dedicated servers on XBL? Do you have a list?

 

[function]

IMO MS should allow PC based, privately hosted servers that run as part of the Xbox Live network.

MS like money, and they are happy to charge people £40 a year for a matchmaking service and friends list that they have no option but to use, so why not charge people to allow them to run servers? If a server abuses the Live TaCs ban them from Live so Live users can't find them.

It would no doubt cost money for developers to produce PC server versions, so entice them by giving them a cut of any money that MS get from people who are paying to host them. Sustainable revenue and no waiting around in lobbies for 6 minutes for a 2 minute game.

My experience of playing Halo 3 online was one of a superb game ruined by poor, unstable connections to servers half way round the world with quitting hosts, unbalanced teams (7 of your team of 8 have quit, you must continue alone!) and assholes that no-one had any ability to kick. And waiting, waiting, so much bloody waiting for it to find a game.

 

[Crossbar]

Its only because dedicated servers (which are needed for lag free 32+ player games) costs a lot of money, and there is no X360 exclusive that focuses on large scale multiplayer battles like Resistance for example.

Will Killzone 2 only use dedicated servers?
Apparently there is 1.1 million pre-orders for the game right now. I guess it will require quite a few servers once it hits retail.

Kind of strange that MS does not offer some lag free dedicated servers for any of their games considering the Live subscription fees.

 

[KongRudi]

PSN uses a mix of official company-hosted servers, and user-started servers, and lastly P2P-networking, or whatever the developers want.

Userbandwith have steadily increased the last 10 years, while the number of players in games havn't. I don't know how matchmaking on Live works, that's what I'm trying to figure out.

But couldn't the developers in theory copy how they did it in Warhawk?
Just have ping on the server-list, to show your connection to the eventual hosts, and restrict those wich have too litle bandwith, to start servers with less players?

That way players won't lag.

That's how they do it in Warhawk wich is the online console-game I'm most familiar with, and I can't recall ever experiencing any lag on Warhawk, in both company- and in user-hosted matches.

The only time I saw bad lag in Warhawk where in a video at Gamespot, before the game were released.

Games get alot of more fun when the games are full, instead of when we're just 20'ish.
So could developers copy this popular PS3-model and use it on a 360-game, if they wanted to?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

But couldn't the developers in theory copy how they did it in Warhawk? Just have ping on the server-list, to show your connection to the eventual hosts, and restrict those wich have too litle bandwith, to start servers with less players?

That way players won't lag.

That's how they do it in Warhawk wich is the online console-game I'm most familiar with, and I can't recall ever experiencing any lag on Warhawk, in both company- and in user-hosted matches.

Warhawk gets serious lag at times. I've known updates a good half a second or later, with players teleporting all over the shop. It's not usual, but there's nothing to stop a player choosing a game with a high ping and I think some do as an exploit. Also how many user games are over 24 player? That's only possible with a fast connection and PS3 dedicated server. I don't recall ever seeing a listed game with 32 players that wasn't an official Sony game.

It's as Ostepop says. There's no technical limit to Live! preventing more players at once. It's just the cost of providing a playable experience in those conditions. It's not deemed economical for most companies. If MS wanted to create a MAG and host their own servers, they could do it.

 

[DrJay24]

Kind of strange that MS does not offer some lag free dedicated servers for any of their games considering the Live subscription fees.

This is the golden question. I get free dedicated servers on PSN and pay for P2P on Live, I guess it boils down to business models.

 

[Boxercide]

Warhawk gets serious lag at times. I've known updates a good half a second or later, with players teleporting all over the shop. It's not usual, but there's nothing to stop a player choosing a game with a high ping and I think some do as an exploit. Also how many user games are over 24 player? That's only possible with a fast connection and PS3 dedicated server. I don't recall ever seeing a listed game with 32 players that wasn't an official Sony game.

It's as Ostepop says. There's no technical limit to Live! preventing more players at once. It's just the cost of providing a playable experience in those conditions. It's not deemed economical for most companies. If MS wanted to create a MAG and host their own servers, they could do it.

I'm able to host 32 player as a dedicated. I have Comcast. I hate them but the one great thing is I almost always have a full speed as advertised connection.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

My question is what games does use dedicated servers on XBL? Do you have a list?

I dont have a list, but i do know that the two battlefield games on X360 uses dedicated servers.

 

[Asher]

Left 4 Dead does as well, IIRC.

 

[speedsix]

Why do people refer to user hosted servers as P2P?

I thought only a few XBL games were actually peer-to-peer, things like MotoGP etc. Voice comms is P2P though I believe.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Why do people refer to user hosted servers as P2P?

Because its easier to type.

I thought only a few XBL games were actually peer-to-peer, things like MotoGP etc. Voice comms is P2P though I believe.

Only a few indeed.

 

[AzBat]

Don't a few EA titles support dedicated servers? Wasn't that the whole reason why EA took so long to support Xbox Live since they wouldn't have control over the server experience?

Tommy McClain

 

[Acert93]

I dont have a list, but i do know that the two battlefield games on X360 uses dedicated servers.

Frontlines uses dedicated servers and is 32+ as well.