Question of the Day, September 11, 2010
- Thread starter The Escapist Staff
- Start date
Plus PSN is still trying to catch up to all the online gaming features that Xbox Live has, so it doesn't make sense for PSN to move towards something like letting players get their own servers yet. They still haven't figured out cross game chat and being able to avoid players, they aren't ready for a step that big.Warrior Irme said:
Anyway I refrain from voting, because while it might be good for Microsoft published games, what happens with games from other publishers? Would I have to pay a separate fee for a game by EA or Activision (Battlefield Bad Company 2 and Call of Duty whatever respectively, since those seem to be pretty popular)? Would they work together with Microsoft to make it easier for the game? Also, if I was stuck into having to navigate a mess of servers to find a game because they took away the current system to implement this, I would be super pissed off. And since none of the poll options really reflect "I'd want more details about how all this might work before I can decide if I like it or not", no vote.
The only reason why they wouldn't is because servers would be created to auto-award achievements. That's really the ONLY reason why it would be a problem.
But those achievements are utterly meaningless anyways, so let's just ditch them an throw up private servers!
Also allow modding, please.
But those achievements are utterly meaningless anyways, so let's just ditch them an throw up private servers!
Also allow modding, please.
It won't happen. Live is all about locking people into a certain series of ideas about what consoles, the internet, and video games can do.
We don't want console users thinking they're entitled to anything, now do we?
We don't want console users thinking they're entitled to anything, now do we?
Yup.Assassin Xaero said:
And yes to the question, as well.
However, I think there needs to be a simpler option for the casuals. I can't imagine the headache of trying to get my friends and family to figure this crap out.
I was actually just thinking recently that it made no sense for consoles to NOT have server lists like PCs do, even if you're just choosing from Microsoft's servers (by which I mean the same servers that are up now). Matchmaking can be great for just jumping into a game without any sort of thought--letting the computer choose a low-ping game against people you're reasonably matched with--but the choice of a server list means that it's a lot easier to connect with friends, both from your offline and online lives, and play in a smaller, tighter-knit community. There have been times that I've played on XBL or PSN with some pretty fantastic people (you know, ones who used the voice chat to strategize and alert us to enemy positions while playing intelligently), and being able to go back to the same server with those same people would be awesome.
To that end, I think that games from this point forward should have two ways of getting into games: matchmaking, which will dump the players who don't care/don't want to think about it into a game in which they'll have some fun, and server lists, where veteran/hardcore players can find servers with little to no latency in which they'll play with and against people like them--evenly matched and of comparable misanthropic or friendly dispositions. This would give the 'console tards', as Yahtzee calls them, the chance to figure out how server lists work without being forced to change from good old matchmaking--and eventually, matchmaking could become more and more scarce until console gamers are on even footing with PC gamers.
So, short answer, yes. Absolutely. Console gamers should most definitely get to moderate their own servers (and as Mr. Young noted, Sony and Microsoft could even make some money this way).
To that end, I think that games from this point forward should have two ways of getting into games: matchmaking, which will dump the players who don't care/don't want to think about it into a game in which they'll have some fun, and server lists, where veteran/hardcore players can find servers with little to no latency in which they'll play with and against people like them--evenly matched and of comparable misanthropic or friendly dispositions. This would give the 'console tards', as Yahtzee calls them, the chance to figure out how server lists work without being forced to change from good old matchmaking--and eventually, matchmaking could become more and more scarce until console gamers are on even footing with PC gamers.
So, short answer, yes. Absolutely. Console gamers should most definitely get to moderate their own servers (and as Mr. Young noted, Sony and Microsoft could even make some money this way).
Is my solution to your liking?Zachary Amaranth said:
As an xbox 360 owner I voted no. Now, before I go into my vague reasoning for my own personal opinion and preference let me start by saying I used to play battlefield 2 and 2142 extensively and also still occasionally play TF2. So I have some experience with playing on dedicated servers. Emphasis on the some.
As a personal preference I never really like the find server interfaces, I prefer the simply no nonsense 'find match' options as seen in many Xbox live games. However, this is only a preference because I very rarely experience lag on the 360 (probably about as much on the PC), so the criteria for me is easy of finding a game and I find Live's and PSN to be easier. Again, personal preference.
Also to me a lot of people seem happy to let other people pay to allow them to play on dedicated servers, with little too no cost themselves. And, just to reiterate, although there may be no cost to you, someone is paying to allow you to play. I'm not sure how accurate the costs are, but shamus said in his article that a full server could cost $20 per month to run. So someone is paying $240 a year for your privilege to play. Sounds fair.
As for the ability to moderate, sure that's a great advantage and keeps the playing environment great, but you still have to wade through the shite ones to find the good and I remember playing on some bad ones. I also sure you can avoid certain players when you leave feedback on them on live.
As a personal preference I never really like the find server interfaces, I prefer the simply no nonsense 'find match' options as seen in many Xbox live games. However, this is only a preference because I very rarely experience lag on the 360 (probably about as much on the PC), so the criteria for me is easy of finding a game and I find Live's and PSN to be easier. Again, personal preference.
Also to me a lot of people seem happy to let other people pay to allow them to play on dedicated servers, with little too no cost themselves. And, just to reiterate, although there may be no cost to you, someone is paying to allow you to play. I'm not sure how accurate the costs are, but shamus said in his article that a full server could cost $20 per month to run. So someone is paying $240 a year for your privilege to play. Sounds fair.
As for the ability to moderate, sure that's a great advantage and keeps the playing environment great, but you still have to wade through the shite ones to find the good and I remember playing on some bad ones. I also sure you can avoid certain players when you leave feedback on them on live.
For that they could do like L4D does. Think L4D has the lobby option, filters, and also a quick join option that just throws you into a random game...Zachary Amaranth said:
You know what game has the most cheating on PC? MW2. You know what game uses the match making system like 360? MW2. Your comment is illogical. DLC theft is probably due to outrageous prices... oh look, MW2 again.Souplex said:
Two things to say to that second comment...
1. Pfft... hahahaha...
2. /facepalm
