So, the 360 shoud have the CPU power to host a 64-120 persons game, right?
- Thread starter c0_re
- Start date
I think it's more a function of your broadband than the X360's CPU. If a developer really wants 64 people all playing at the same time it wouldn't be a problem over a very fast connection. The downside is that you have to sacrifice things like hit-detection and whatnot. Planetside is a perfect example. You can have huge battles involving many players, it's just that the game's draw distance sucks and there's no differentiation between a headshot and a legshot as far as damage goes.
I think there's an implied limit to the number of people you can have online. On Socom 3 with 32 players, it's hard enough to get hold of the mic and say what you have to say. Imagine what 64 people would be like? 
Eventually during game time you should be able to only talk to certain players.
Anyways, back on topic, yes, 64 players can be done easily as the PS2 can do 32 no problems at all.
Eventually during game time you should be able to only talk to certain players.
Anyways, back on topic, yes, 64 players can be done easily as the PS2 can do 32 no problems at all.
Developers (hopefully Microsoft) is probably working on making games peer to peer like Doom 3 was said to be early in development. I imagine there are a lot of problems with latency though. But really how much would it cost Microsoft to provide dedicated servers for certain games. Hell they could ask for microtransactions (best be hella cheap) if you want to play on a dedicated server.
Nope as games start to have physics that effect gameplay (next gen games will have this in spades) you see the bandwidth requirement increase. Look at HL2 deathmatch. If you want innovative online gameplay you'll need the bandwidth to support it.drpepper said:
Last edited by a moderator:
pc999 said:
The new Internet Protocol is supposed to make online gaming better. IPv6 has the ability to prioritize traffic, so information like emails that aren't latency sensitive have to wait in line, while video stream data or game data get to cut ahead.
There are already companies using their own dedicated servers. In one of Major Nelson's podcast interviews with the head of xbox live (his boss' - boss as he put it) he said EA uses their own dedicated servers but MS monitors them for outages at their site and updates the Xbox page when theres outages.
Didnt knew that thanks, but what about compreension of the gaming data efore in/outputslike happens/is on the DVD to memory, 3Dc, ZIP, JPEG 2000, whatever (I konw none of them is for the purpose but I think you understand what I mean), thing like that should help in getting more players/features in games?
YeuEmMaiMai
Regular
network bandwidth has more to do with limiting players than CPU does.........
Traditionally this is true. However, as games become more complex, more work must be done per "tick" to compute the server world/state. Compare Counter-Strike with Counter-Strike: Source, for example. Bandwidth requirements have increased slightly, but there is now much more computation necessary server-side to maintain the game world. Of course, this will depend on the game's preference on computing certain factors client or server side, but many states must at least be stored server side for it all to work.YeuEmMaiMai said:
Similar threads
- Locked
