Question of the Day, September 11, 2010

[Autofaux]

I voted yes, even though I don't own an Xbox.

I did as well.

 

[Souplex]

Referencing how PC gaming does it does not work when PC gaming is dying and obsolete.

Oh that old chestnut.

PC gaming is doing better than ever if you count in digital distribution and dedicated rented servers is the only proper way to play multiplayer. I'd rather have the choice than not, it's not like games on Windows don't have a "quick match"-option as well.

It's not aboot total, it's aboot percentage. Back in the day PC gaming might have been the majority. Now though...
If Michael Pachter is to be believed than PC game sales make up less than 7% of total game sales.
Find the video yourself, it's in the first ten I think.
http://www.gametrailers.com/game/pach-attack/12619
You don't model yourself after a sinking ship, and if you do then you don't incorporate the giant hole in the bottom into your design.
You take what works, incorporate it into your design and scrap the rest, and laugh at the inferior remains.
It's what consoles did with arcades, but there are still people who insist that arcades aren't dead.
Sad deluded people.

 

[Hateren47]

snip

If Michael Pachter is to be believed than PC game sales make up less than 7% of total game sales.
Find the video yourself, it's in the first ten I think.
http://www.gametrailers.com/game/pach-attack/12619
You don't model yourself after a sinking ship, and if you do then you don't incorporate the giant hole in the bottom into your design.
You take what works, incorporate it into your design and scrap the rest, and laugh at the inferior remains.
It's what consoles did with arcades, but there are still people who insist that arcades aren't dead.
Sad deluded people.

You're gonna have to direct me to that exact video, I'm not sitting through 10 videos of an industry analyst (that's what he is, right?) who apparently got his numbers by going into a Gamestop and asking how many games they sell for each system. Those 7% can't be ALL PC games sold just the ones sold in retail and who the fuck buys retail these days? No one. I think that number is a lot closer to 30% than you or Pachter thinks. Or is this including handhelds like NDS, PSP and iPhone etc? Is he including tabletop games as well? Is this US only? Those things lowers it a bit.

And even if he got numbers from Steam, D2D etc. (which he didn't), what does that have to do with anything. Dedicated servers are still the best environment for shooting people in the face. There is no argument. If you don't like a server, it's admins, it's rules, it's mods etc. you blacklist it and find another.

I could be talking out my ass here but I simply don't believe those numbers. Unless they are retail and thus useless. It appears even the mighty Michael Pachter is full of shit like the rest of the industry.

But this is all terribly unimportant. Tell me, in your own words, what's wrong with having people running they own servers and what would be a better model? The slow moderators on Xbox Live? Please. The matchmaking BS they tried in MW2? Hell no.

 

[Sixties Spidey]

Yes please. If it means the ability to moderate your own server and being able to weed out fuckwits AND giving players the ability to play Xbox 1 games like Halo 2, Battlefront 2, Rainbow Six, etc. online again, why the hell not?

 

[Jezzascmezza]

That could work as an option.
Have both traditional servers and user-created servers, so everyone stays happy.

 

[Funkysandwich]

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.

In most PC games there is still an auto join button. I personally hate matchmaking because I live in Australia and would rather play on local severs that don't lag. You can however, have matchmaking and private servers at the same time. It's all down to how much though goes into implementing the solution. It would be brilliant if done properly.

But for now, I'm sticking to my PC for online gaming.

 

[Luke Cartner]

In a related note, why not allow xbox 360 users to connect to services such as steam rather than xbox live?

 

[dank57]

so why comment?

 

[dank57]

So basically like how PC gaming has been forever? Umm... I guess it could be good, I don't have a 360 or have ever played on Live, so don't really know or care much.

7h4nk5 f0r 7h3 p0!n71355 (0mm3n7