What's Wrong with Xbox Live?

[nipsen]

..except.. of course.. that most games you will play online on xbl don't actually have servers run or paid for by Microsoft. It's either p2p, or associated companies providing dedicated stats-servers, etc. So.. you're not paying for anything except access.


..

And I'm just curious - how does someone covering games for a living not know that..?

 

[Azriel Nightshade]

Personally the idea of having dedicated servers on live seem more like an unnecessary hassle that a blessing. I would need an unbiased list of the pros and cons of both platforms before I could say that swing one way or the other. Granted I say this as someone who mostly played single player console games,barely touches multilayer and the only thing PC related I play is WoW,on a Mac.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Either you didn't read the article or you're completely oblivious of how player run dedicated servers work.

Well yes I did skim the article originally.

Then I read the article in depth.

Then you get an instance of a game where you have all the admin powers. You can set the maps and the game mode and boot or mute at will.

So yeah my original point still stands.

Yes, an admin has the power to be a complete dick. The trouble is, if that person wants people to stick around, they're going to have to cater to someone's taste in gaming.

Being the king dick of an empty kingdom is hardly something people routinely choose to pay perfectly good money for.

 

[baseracer]

Xbox Live is terrible.

Microsoft doesn't lose any of the money it receives. Except for the very small costs of matchmaking.

 

[DTWolfwood]

aka Dedicated Server Arguement.

 

[Asparagus Brown]

I don't think dedicated servers on Xbox live is a very good idea at all.

How do you run worldwide leaderboards across multiple servers?

It complicates a service that's intended to be simple, accessible and completely connected.

 

[perpetualburn]

Shamus is being way too lenient on XBL. 60 bucks to play on servers that Microsoft doesn't even own? They give you absolutely nothing of worth for such a premium, other than online play, which you shouldn't even be paying for. Essentially, you're paying Microsoft for the right to use your Username and Password. I quit my 360 (which I never bought LIVE for) and bought a PS3. Other than the lack of in-game user music, and some pretty shitty menus, PSN does everything XBL does, for free.

Also, I've been playing online games on the PC for 10 years and I've never been booted for killing an admin one too many times. I HAVE been votekicked for "hacking," and I have been booted for breaking rules, but I simply join one of the other 10000 dedicated servers out there. Like Shamus said, a server is like a bar, or a business. If you do something like booting people who simply piss you off, you lose customers.

 

[bakonslayer]

I don't think dedicated servers on Xbox live is a very good idea at all.

How do you run worldwide leaderboards across multiple servers?

It complicates a service that's intended to be simple, accessible and completely connected.

The Dedicated Server system actually organizes connections and makes it less guess work, I don't think it needs to be said much more since you can read through the rest of the comments here, but on consoles you spend a lot of time throwing your connection into the air and hoping that it gets connected to a match that doesn't collapse mid-game. And then you repeat that process to continue play. Dedicated Servers allow you to continuously play on a trustworthy connection however you want to play.

I think that this is a brilliant idea that you'd think Microsoft would quickly jump on since it involves Microsoft doing less work to make more money - but Microsoft is not one to think very far ahead as far as consoles are concerned and the Xbox continually gets shafted due to their lack of communication. But here is for hoping, Xbox Live is a strong service that I'll be joining soon and I feel like we all deserve to see it brought to its fullest potential.

 

[The Axon Hillock]

I'm perfectly happy with XBox 360 Silver. I can download Braid, watch new episodes of the Guild, watch little trailers for upcoming games, and when I need an online multiplayer experience, I just turn on my PS3. I can't afford a fancy shmancy computer on a college student budget, so I buy single player games to use with my XBox and its superior controller, and multiplayer games to use on my PS3 with its superior price for live.

I also system-link games of Gears of War. A LOT.

 

[ars731]

Remember how all the PC gamers went nuts over Modern Warfare 2 not having dedicated servers. well this is why. Dedicated servers are one of the best part of PC gaming

 

[Treblaine]

Experienced Points: What's Wrong with Xbox Live?

Everything would be much better if Xbox would just let us run its servers.

Read Full Article

Only it's worse than that as Xbox doesn't even use "servers" in any familiar sense.

They have controller servers but they are just running authorisation and stat-tracking. The actual games are almost universally (all the Halo games, all COD games, all GoW games) peer-2-peer online including Halo 2. You have Literally already paid for these servers as the host of the game their console acts as the server, the ISP they pay to connect to the internet and their power bill is the runnign costs. XBL SHOULD be free!

Halo 2 was shut down because the underlying code of XBL used with original Xbox had a limit of how many friends you could have, It was some number over 100 but it increase that limit ALL original-xbox multiplayer games had to be shut down. yeah, what's more important Halo 2 multiplayer or having over 100 facebook "friends" most you don't even know?

Online multiplayer for Halo 1 and 2 are still going strong online on their PC releases. I know Halo 3 will see the same fate on 360 soon, here's hoping for a belated PC release.

 

[Treblaine]

I don't think dedicated servers on Xbox live is a very good idea at all.

How do you run worldwide leaderboards across multiple servers?

It complicates a service that's intended to be simple, accessible and completely connected.

I think you have been misled on or misunderstood how online gaming works.

We are talking about Game HOSTING. That is the heavy processing and high server load of running the game and sharing out the millions of data packets to each player in their home with low latency.

With dedicated servers (as usual on PC), you rent a specialised super-computer (or portion of one) that is positioned deep in the networks of the internet with the lowest possible latency for all, and enterprise level reliability.

With consoles most of the time it is just peer-to-peer where most of the work is STILL done by the users. There are algorithms to find groups of consoles trying to connect that decide which is best to serve as the "host". The host (person at home with their Xbox connected online) functions just the same as a dedicated server only:
-higher latency
-host advantage
-lower reliability
-poor control
-poor organisation
-inflexible
-basically all bad.

But the stat-tracking, leaderboards, authorisation and achievement tracking is not done by either the Dedicated server OR the host console, that is a LOW DATA VOLUME task run by a few low-power servers owned and operated by the parent company, it basically stands over that and takes a note of everything that happens. It works like for Steam, where the overwhelming majority of games are on dedicated servers but all the time Valve's Steam client-software (much like XBL) is offering support, tracking and assisting but not actually running much at all.

 

[EBass]

Once again Seamus you kick ass.

 

[Lerxst]

Xbox Live is the reason I have never and will never buy an Xbox. I can get the same thing they charge you for, for free on a PC. Never made sense that I had to pay for it (and a more restrictive version for that matter) on an Xbox.

 

[hyperdrachen]

Experienced Points: What's Wrong with Xbox Live?

Everything would be much better if Xbox would just let us run its servers.

Read Full Article

We'll thanks for putting my thoughts on Xbox live under a your more read, and I'll guess respected colum than my random forum rant.

Paying is fine, but what I'm getting for the money is questionable. I'd gleefuly fork over that 60 dollars if they would implement some of the features you mentioned. I wouldn't likely run my own server, depending on how deep i get into Reach's forge. But having been an avid PC gamer as well I'll say your pub analogy is a good one, and something that would do the creative tools of forge alot more justice than they'll ever see on live as is.

 

[Asparagus Brown]

I don't think dedicated servers on Xbox live is a very good idea at all.

How do you run worldwide leaderboards across multiple servers?

It complicates a service that's intended to be simple, accessible and completely connected.

I think you have been misled on or misunderstood how online gaming works.

We are talking about Game HOSTING. That is the heavy processing and high server load of running the game and sharing out the millions of data packets to each player in their home with low latency.

With dedicated servers (as usual on PC), you rent a specialised super-computer (or portion of one) that is positioned deep in the networks of the internet with the lowest possible latency for all, and enterprise level reliability.

With consoles most of the time it is just peer-to-peer where most of the work is STILL done by the users. There are algorithms to find groups of consoles trying to connect that decide which is best to serve as the "host". The host (person at home with their Xbox connected online) functions just the same as a dedicated server only:
-higher latency
-host advantage
-lower reliability
-poor control
-poor organisation
-inflexible
-basically all bad.

But the stat-tracking, leaderboards, authorisation and achievement tracking is not done by either the Dedicated server OR the host console, that is a LOW DATA VOLUME task run by a few low-power servers owned and operated by the parent company, it basically stands over that and takes a note of everything that happens. It works like for Steam, where the overwhelming majority of games are on dedicated servers but all the time Valve's Steam client-software (much like XBL) is offering support, tracking and assisting but not actually running much at all.

"If you just want a six-person server with your friends, it might run you something like $8 a month." I imagine it'd be difficult to rank these people against the rest of the world.

You're right, though: I don't know a whole heap about how online gaming works, which is in part why the whole Xbox Live thing appeals to me. It means I can throw in a disc and jump into a game and it's as simple as that. I realise there are large downsides to the Live model in regards to performance and moderation, but I think that fracturing it into user-run moderated servers isn't the best in terms of accessibility, which seems to be one of Microsoft's main goals with the service.

Anyway, feel free to inform/correct me on that if there's anything I've said that doesn't add up.

 

[wasalp]

Either you didn't read the article or you're completely oblivious of how player run dedicated servers work.

Well yes I did skim the article originally.

Then I read the article in depth.

Then you get an instance of a game where you have all the admin powers. You can set the maps and the game mode and boot or mute at will.

So yeah my original point still stands.

which is why most of those hosts servers are going to be empty, theres a sort of natural selection that happens with player run servers, the good serveres are busy and the bad ones aren't.

 

[TitsMcGee1804]

this is why companies like valve and blizzard will one day rule the market and eventually the world, and companies like EA and microsoft will go bust

edit: okay, maybe MS wont go bust but you get the idea