What's Wrong with Xbox Live?

[Narcogen]

I've sat around for an hour waiting to start a basic match of Bad Company 2 (on a FIOS connection no less, so it isn't on my end). What am I paying for during that one hour again?

It's unspeakably hilarious that people think dedicated servers will fix this. It will only fix it for the people who run one.

When you're in matchmaking (Halo style) your console and every other console looking for a match in for the same game type (or playlist) is a potential server. The games try to match people's preferences (game type, maps, etc) as well as match for skill (which dedicated servers can't do because there's no authoritative source for this information.)

All those potential hosts are paying per year for the service, and there are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of them waiting to be grouped into parties according to their preferences.

How in the heck is the number of dedicated servers that could be put into play supposed to change this, especially considering the cost would most likely be in excess of-- and in addition to-- the XBL membership fee?

Let's imagine, for a moment, that you run a server. You run it at home, since you have a nice fast connection and reliable power. Your Xbox is going to see that server and use it all the time-- after all, it's running all the time, it runs the playlists, gametypes, and maps you like, and it has the lowest ping.

Now you need players. As far as matchmaking is concerned, all you've done is eliminated your Xbox as a potential host (it's now a client connected to your server) and still needs to match up a certain number of players in order to start a match.

In other words, during the times when a server administrator is looking to play, no number of additional dedicated servers will significantly alter the client:: potential host ratio on the service.

If you used a professional service, with a lot of extra bandwidth, and ran multiple processes, then you might be putting a dent in the problem-- but this is where real money needs to be spent. Halo has hundreds of thousands of players simultaneously, and routinely, and there are plenty of other games on XBL as well.

How many people are willing to pay for a professional server? What's the ratio between the number of processes they can run and the player base? Are dedicated servers supposed to replace the model where Xbox consoles can also serve as hosts? Because that is a LOT of servers.

Let's do a quick comparison.

Top current game on Steam:

COD/MOW2. 30,452 current players, 77,402 peak players for the day.

The next two slots are for CS: Source and CS. #4? Football Manager. #5? TF2 at 20K peak, almost four times smaller than the COD/MOW2 playerbase. At spot #8 the populations drop under five digits.

The total number of concurrent players on Steam when I checked was 166,639.

The aggregate peak-- if we assumed that all games were their busiest during the day at the precise same moment-- which I am sure is not the case-- that would give a figure of 423,851 concurrent players.

On the day of MOW2's launch, XBL supported 2 million concurrent players. 500% more than the theoretical concurrent peak on Steam when I compared, and 1000% more than the actual concurrent figure.

Let's assume that was a really busy day. Today, on Halo 3, the total number of unique players in a 24 hour period was 921,546. That's more than twice the theoretical maximum peak concurrent figure for Steam. Even if you adjust for the difference in calculating the figures (total unique vs total concurrent) there's no comparison, and that is only one game compared to the entire Steam playerbase.

There is absolutely no way there are enough individuals willing to pay for dedicated servers to replace the way XBL works, and there is no way to integrate those servers into the existing populations in a way that is fair. Where Microsoft can make reasonable attempts to police hacked consoles that lead to cheating, there is no conceivable way they can do it for dedicated servers, especially if people take advantage of the features dedicated servers entail-- custom content.

There is a platform that adequately supports all the features offered by dedicated servers and that XBL lacks, and provides free multiplayer. It's called the PC. Not only would I not pay any yearly fee for an XBL that worked with dedicated servers the way you describe, I wouldn't even waste my time with it if it was free-- my time is too valuable.

 

[Narcogen]

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?

[snip]

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

NOPE!

Just because ONE SINGLE SERVER that six people join exist does NOT mean there cannot be an over-arching stat-tracking system covering ALL servers that a game might connect to.

Valve Software's very popular Steam Client lets you connect your game to any server, including servers as small as only 4 players, and with supported games still track all achievements, stats, leader-boards and all that crap. And you don't need to know a thing about how it works for it to happen. Just launch the game (don't even have to insert the disc) and join a muliplayer game.

Because Valve, like Microsoft, runs central servers that the Steam Clients talk to that handle this information. They just do it on a scale that is quite a bit smaller than Xbox Live.

One could think about it this way. Steam is a direct competitor to Xbox Live, in that they offer similar services.

However, the barriers to entry for a Steam gamer are actually higher, on average. While you can make a competent gaming rig for around the price of a console, many gamers who choose the PC as their platform will aim higher than that.

PC games don't target a single hardware platform over a range of 5-10 years, the way console games do, so you'll either upgrade your video hardware more often, or tolerate an aesthetic experience that is degraded compared to what other gamers are getting from the same game.

It is not that surprising that given a smaller pool of potential subscribers who have paid a higher price for entry into the market, Steam would choose to make its online service free-- especially when their direct competiton on the same platform (Windows) has historically had online play for free as well.

Steam is not free because it doesn't cost anything to run. It's free because Valve makes enough margin on games to cover that cost, which is lower in aggregate because there are fewer Steam players than XBL players-- and because Steam needs to be free in order to have a viable player base.

If Steam cost per year what XBL did, how many subscribers would they have tomorrow? Isn't that the real measure of the value of what the two platforms offer-- not which one gives away more for free, but which one people are willing to pay for?

 

[Bullett]

There is absolutely no way there are enough individuals willing to pay for dedicated servers to replace the way XBL works

By your own figures there are more players on xbl than steam, yet a smaller community can support more dedicated servers?

I don't think anyone is advocating the removal of the current model. Just adding it as an alternative for those that want it.

I've been on-line gaming for 10+ years, mostly on PC. When I first started I just joined random servers, added the ones I like to favourites and blocked the bad ones. I built up friendships with people on-line that simply has not been possible in random matchmaking console gaming. I like the pub metaphor you might try several before you find one you like, so you keep going back.

I pay for a dedicated server along with some of these people I met on-line (non of my real-life friends play much on-line) it gave us control to set our own rules of conduct and play standards. We could also close the serve to the public and play private games. It was in a data centre so ping was good and the server was reliable. In the end we were running about 5-6 different games, most were full all the time.

My gaming time is precious to me I don't want to play with randoms all the time I'd rather pay for a server and enjoy my gaming than have to play with idiots, racists and TK'ers.

Can't see it happening though. Consoles are a closed system, it is all about control. Do MS want you to still be playing Halo1, no they don't they want you to buy reach.

Valve have a good balance between power and community, CS is still going (a free game!) and valve have very much built their business model on the back of such a dedicated community.

 

[Da Ork]

Well said sir

 

[Da Ork]

If Steam cost per year what XBL did, how many subscribers would they have tomorrow? Isn't that the real measure of the value of what the two platforms offer-- not which one gives away more for free, but which one people are willing to pay for?

You make an interesting point but I'm afraid your wrong. Xbox live holds your multi player (or at best your online multi player) hostage until you cough up the money steam doesn't.

 

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

NOPE!

Just because ONE SINGLE SERVER that six people join exist does NOT mean there cannot be an over-arching stat-tracking system covering ALL servers that a game might connect to.


Valve Software's very popular Steam Client lets you connect your game to any server, including servers as small as only 4 players, and with supported games still track all achievements, stats, leader-boards and all that crap. And you don't need to know a thing about how it works for it to happen. Just launch the game (don't even have to insert the disc) and join a muliplayer game.

Because Valve, like Microsoft, runs central servers that the Steam Clients talk to that handle this information. They just do it on a scale that is quite a bit smaller than Xbox Live.

Again:

The PEAK number of concurrent (simultaneous at the same time) users logged in Steam for JUST TODAY is over 2.7 million

http://store.steampowered.com/stats/

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/xbox-live-hits-1-5-million-concurrent-users

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/xbox-live-hits-2-million-concurrent-users

It seems Xbox Live has yet to hit 2.5 million concurrent users.

http://www.totalpcgaming.com/latest-pc-news/steam-user-accounts-hit-25-million/

http://www.joystiq.com/2010/01/06/xbox-by-the-numbers-20m-xbox-live-users-10m-nongaming-39m-xbo/

XBL also has less users. It seems that of those 20 million accounts (against Steam's 25 million back in 2009) only 50% of which even have gold membership. I sure don't have Gold, it's a rip off.

One could think about it this way. Steam is a direct competitor to Xbox Live, in that they offer similar services.

However, the barriers to entry for a Steam gamer are actually higher, on average. While you can make a competent gaming rig for around the price of a console, many gamers who choose the PC as their platform will aim higher than that.

PC games don't target a single hardware platform over a range of 5-10 years, the way console games do, so you'll either upgrade your video hardware more often, or tolerate an aesthetic experience that is degraded compared to what other gamers are getting from the same game.

It is not that surprising that given a smaller pool of potential subscribers who have paid a higher price for entry into the market, Steam would choose to make its online service free-- especially when their direct competiton on the same platform (Windows) has historically had online play for free as well.

Steam is not free because it doesn't cost anything to run. It's free because Valve makes enough margin on games to cover that cost, which is lower in aggregate because there are fewer Steam players than XBL players-- and because Steam needs to be free in order to have a viable player base.

If Steam cost per year what XBL did, how many subscribers would they have tomorrow? Isn't that the real measure of the value of what the two platforms offer-- not which one gives away more for free, but which one people are willing to pay for?

Not only have you deflected the debate from poor multiplayer networks to a ridiculous straw-man argument about PC gaming but it is completely unfounded argument.

"so you'll either upgrade your video hardware more often, or tolerate an aesthetic experience that is degraded compared to what other gamers are getting from the same game."

LOL! You do realise that console gaming settles for a "degraded aesthetic experience" for almost every game?

Halo 3 (ODST too) is at only a measly 640p, no anti-aliasing with basic textures and low draw distance (good lighting though). All the COD games on both PS3 + 360 have been at only 1024x600 resolution, barely a sliver more pixels than 576p, that's considered Standard Definition resolution.

You'd have to have a SERIOUSLY WEAK rig to be outperformed by an Xbox 360. ANYTHING other than integrated graphics can beat Xbox 360 at the moment. The cheapest graphics card I can find (ATI Radeon HD 4350 for less than $30!) still outperforms the Xbox 360 release of Modern Warfare 2.

But your argument is an OLD argument, has been discussed to death dozens of times before but it is brought up over and over again (to spite disproving all your negative points against PC) every time Xbox 360's perceived "superiority" is in any way challenged. Quickly make up presumptive and nebulous nonsense about how to dismiss PC gaming usually revolving around how some PC's are more expensive than others.

"Steam is not free because it doesn't cost anything to run. It's free because Valve makes enough margin on games to cover that cost"

SAME FOR XBOX LIVE! If either networks cost anything to run it would be a less than a dollar per-user per-YEAR, too small to charge. Millions of other online services don't insult their user's intelligence with crap like it costs $60 per-person-per-year. Also charging for all that premium DLC and taking their cut. All Valve games have free DLC with Steam, yet must be paid for on Xbox Live. It turns a game like Left 4 Dead 2 from costing $60 game to effectively $80 (btw, I got L4D2 for less than $10 in one of the frequent Steam sales). Microsoft is simply being extortionate with their "service" and it is frankly shameful how their fans rationalise and defend it.

[small](But it MAY not have enough margin from games sales alone to cover the cost of the Xbox 360's incredibly high failure rate and how much they pay for timed exclusives (paid $40 million just to get GTA4 DLC a bit early) and other poor business decisions. But that is Microsoft's fault from poor business strategy, the loyal fans should not have to prop them up. Windows operating system and other services may make Microsoft a profit but I think their Xbox division is still yet to turn a profit.)[/small]

 

[DenSomKastade]

Resitance 2 had server browser I think...
Multiplayer seems so much better here on pc but i guess every platform has it's share of beneficts and negatives.

 

[Atmos Duality]

I've sat around for an hour waiting to start a basic match of Bad Company 2 (on a FIOS connection no less, so it isn't on my end). What am I paying for during that one hour again?

It's unspeakably hilarious that people think dedicated servers will fix this. It will only fix it for the people who run one.

That's part of my point.
If that 60 dollars is going towards something, why not some sort of network reliability incentives?

I used to help run private dedicated servers back in the yonder days of 56k Only; very different market but the same concept in terms of networking. I have a college degree in network engineering, so I understand perfectly well what sort of problem that's going on here.

It's that most of these companies are now refusing to put the matchmaking/server platforming software into the game to force you onto their system and they do this for a variety of reasons:
Primarily as an anti-piracy measure to make it harder to reverse-engineer the LAN support into say, a Hamachi-client. But they also gather gameplay statistics/feedback for development, and marketing info for future advertising endeavors.

The result? They build a game so heavily around multiplayer, but their servers are overtaxed to the point that the multiplayer only works for a few. Demand exceeds supply as it were, but there's absolutely no further incentive for the publisher to front for more servers because they aren't getting anything extra for it (it's so easy to shift blame in the networking world, let me tell you), and Microsoft will want a piece of the action because it's on their network.

This is why I ask "What is that 60 bucks going toward? The Overworked-Microsoft-Network-Engineer Fund?"

However, at the same time, the publisher is refusing the player base to legally provide any sort of solution and now we hit impasse'.

I can think of few reasons why a company would force a stalemate on this sort of situation, primarily future plans that force the players to subscribe to a new service IN ADDITION to what they already pay for on Xbox Live.

That's right, it will become similar to the old "PC business model", only players will have no legal choice in the matter; the publisher has set up their monopoly and wring the players for far more than what it would cost to host privately even if they wanted that option.

And here's the truly silly part in all of this: If it weren't for Microsoft's middle-man shenanigans, Xbox Live Gold wouldn't even be necessary.

My point here: Nevermind the numbers, the system has boxed itself into an unwinnable situation no matter what simply due to poor planning compounded by paranoia and greed.

 

[I_am_acting]

not surprised by this TBH, PC is all about customization of every little thing on it, with an Xbox you'll get banned from XBL for modding your Xbox just to use a 3rd party hard drive, there's just too much leash pulling on microsoft's part

 

[Ih8pkmn]

I'll drink to this proposal! Cheers!

and this marks my 300th post. I'll try to resist yelling "this is sparta".

 

[JIst00]

"But since the big publishers seem hell-bent on making everything, everything multiplayer, all the time, everywhere, then it would be nice if the multiplayer functionality was at least as good as it was on PC's in the 1990's."

Hear hear!

Even though I am a Gold Membership subscriber, this has always been my problem with console online multiplayer, PC's had equal or better online functionality nearly A DECADE AND A HALF ago.

 

[Macflash]

snip.

You get just as bad and WORSE latency on console... they just hide the ping value from you.

Peer-2-peer online is perfectly capable on PC (even more so even) just as consoles. It is used so infrequently for very good reasons.

Also, host advantage sucks balls.

Latency will always be an issue, but host advantage is really just having a good connection to the host advantage. If you happen to be near the server you'll always have that split second advantage. Of course (aside from gears of war) I can count the number of really laggy games on my two hands, so lag has never been an issue for me on consoles, unlike on PC games.

 

[chozo_hybrid]

From what I understand the price hike doesn't affect me and my friends in New Zealand, but then again, we don't get half the stuff you guys do in the states, so to me, a price hike makes sense. At least we won't be paying the same for less now.

 

[senataur]

Microsoft capturing a section of the market and then using the position to make money while neglecting and abandoning the servicing of that market?

whodathunkit?

 

[Treblaine]

snip.

You get just as bad and WORSE latency on console... they just hide the ping value from you.

Peer-2-peer online is perfectly capable on PC (even more so even) just as consoles. It is used so infrequently for very good reasons.

Also, host advantage sucks balls.

Latency will always be an issue, but host advantage is really just having a good connection to the host advantage. If you happen to be near the server you'll always have that split second advantage. Of course (aside from gears of war) I can count the number of really laggy games on my two hands, so lag has never been an issue for me on consoles, unlike on PC games.

Latency is hidden on those, by concealing the actual ping numbers and incredibly invasive latency compensation that just leads to weird stuff happening.

On PC you don't HAVE to join a high-lag server... but with console the choice is made for you.

 

[Waaghpowa]

Snip

I love this man, thank you for shutting them up doing for me what I was going to do.

I play CS:S on a regular basis, on from what I've noticed, on average, more people still play CS:S than MW2. Granted some days MW2 is higher in players, but I did say "On average".

 

[the_pleasure_is_mine]

XBL also has less users. It seems that of those 20 million accounts (against Steam's 25 million back in 2009) only 50% of which even have gold membership. I sure don't have Gold, it's a rip off.]

I can't be bothered to add more arguments in this thread. I just want to point out that information is wrong.

There are around 40 million Xboxs and only half of them are on live.

There are between 19 and 20 million Gold Live accounts.

So your numbers are approximately 10 million off.

 

[Woe Is You]

XBL also has less users. It seems that of those 20 million accounts (against Steam's 25 million back in 2009) only 50% of which even have gold membership. I sure don't have Gold, it's a rip off.]

I can't be bothered to add more arguments in this thread. I just want to point out that information is wrong.

There are around 40 million Xboxs and only half of them are on live.

There are between 19 and 20 million Gold Live accounts.

So your numbers are approximately 10 million off.

Where are you getting your stats from? [http://www.1up.com/news/microsoft-25-million-xbl-users]

Furthermore, what people would like is the option to have a dedicated server, not that the system needs to be completely replaced. This is also good in case the plug gets pulled on whatever matchmaking system they have running.

All that crap about stat tracking and play habits information is something I find doesn't really contribute to the actual game. In most games the only thing the stats have reliably tracked was how long you've been playing. This was true for Halo and especially for a game like SSF4 where I beat 15000BP Ryu players easily yet get beaten by 500BP Sakuras doing crazy reset shenanigans.

snip.

You get just as bad and WORSE latency on console... they just hide the ping value from you.

Peer-2-peer online is perfectly capable on PC (even more so even) just as consoles. It is used so infrequently for very good reasons.

Also, host advantage sucks balls.

Latency will always be an issue, but host advantage is really just having a good connection to the host advantage. If you happen to be near the server you'll always have that split second advantage. Of course (aside from gears of war) I can count the number of really laggy games on my two hands, so lag has never been an issue for me on consoles, unlike on PC games.

If you happen to be near the server, sure, but if your game console is running the server, it opens a whole new can of worms. Lag switches are a relatively new phenomenon that can be directly attributed to this new P2P wonderland.

 

[the_pleasure_is_mine]

Where are you getting your stats from? [http://www.1up.com/news/microsoft-25-million-xbl-users]

Furthermore, what people would like is the option to have a dedicated server, not that the system needs to be completely replaced. This is also good in case the plug gets pulled on whatever matchmaking system they have running.

All that crap about stat tracking and play habits information is something I find doesn't really contribute to the actual game. In most games the only thing the stats have reliably tracked was how long you've been playing. This was true for Halo and especially for a game like SSF4 where I beat 15000BP Ryu players easily yet get beaten by 500BP Sakuras doing crazy reset shenanigans.

God knows I read this a while ago...

Still I remember the number being around 19 million people on Live and twice that with Xbox.

It may have been one of the Xbox 360 magazines I own. I have too many to sort through them for one article.

Also the other stuff about dedicated servers... I wouldn't use them so I'm not bothered.

But Microsoft have a good service with a restricted but guided online. I'm fine with it staying like that.

 

[Woodsey]

Not to mention that I don't see why I should be paying more to unlock the other half of my games. I think 360-exclusive users would be in for a bit of a (pleasant) shock if they got a chance to use Steam.

That's a bullshit argument quite frankly. DLC is a business model not an XBL model. If XBox games came out with "the other half of the game" to begin with there wouldn't be a need to buy anything else.

Similarly if Valve had included this "free content" in the original release in the first place, this argument would be pointless.

And considering that Valve is basically running a service that competes with XBox live, one that provides demos and content and a service through which games can be purchased I frankly don't think their voice has any weight to it. It's pretty much the same as Sony saying XBL sucks.

I meant multiplayer, not DLC.