What's Wrong with Xbox Live?

[SirCannonFodder]

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.

Readin comprehension, ur doin it wrong.

If you're a jerk, nobody will visit and you'll be paying to hang out on an empty server alone.

If you constantly act like a dick, then enjoy paying $8-$20 a month to have people joining and then leaving 5 seconds later, followed by them blacklisting your server so they never have to play with you again.

Equally, it's hardly all roses & icecream with dedicated servers. The last game I played online regularly which used them, COD2, was a navigational nightmare full of servers that were empty, locked, playing a map I didn't like, or servers that seemed open but then after 10minutes of loading informed me that it was infact full. As a casual player who really doesn't care who I play with, dedicated servers are more of a hassle than they're worth when one can just select ones preferences & let the game do the rest*.

You can usually set the server browser to only display servers which aren't full/empty/password protected, as well as searching for servers with particular maps/game types (most games have the game type in the map name, eg CTF-Wasteland, or DM-Warehouse, so if you just type in CTF or DM in the map search it'll show all the servers running that game-type) and setting the maximum number of players you want(eg, if you want a quiet server, you can look for 10 max players, or a hectic 32/64 max players)

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Ya live needs 3 things to be awesome, 1 let you run your own servers by using live DRM and tieing the serer to a live account you can have a infinite number of servers the down side its one server per unit the upside you can do a server for all your games, it switch to the game you are playing on live and if you wonder tot hat server you get hit with a lower ping that averages out to what others have. Or you can just set it for X games and it may can run 2 or 3 game servers at once.

Bans would ban all units if cheating occurs.

Next would be free live you get the gold version IE multi player,voice chat,ect but all purchases are 25% more. If you pay the monthly its 35% less on purchases.

Another thing...use most windows XP/7 compatible usb wireless network devices already....

 

[the_pleasure_is_mine]

Readin comprehension, ur doin it wrong.

If you're a jerk, nobody will visit and you'll be paying to hang out on an empty server alone.

If you constantly act like a dick, then enjoy paying $8-$20 a month to have people joining and then leaving 5 seconds later, followed by them blacklisting your server so they never have to play with you again.

There are around 19 million people on live.
It's going to take a long time for that server to get blacklisted.

And I was thinking what if it's a server set up for friends.

Like the GOW1 games. Most of the hosts set them up to get friends in to fight randoms.
Then suddenly they start kicking people cause they get pissed off they die.

Give a normal person the power to boot people and he's going to do just that.

Just leave dedicated servers to the PC.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Readin comprehension, ur doin it wrong.

If you're a jerk, nobody will visit and you'll be paying to hang out on an empty server alone.

If you constantly act like a dick, then enjoy paying $8-$20 a month to have people joining and then leaving 5 seconds later, followed by them blacklisting your server so they never have to play with you again.

There are around 19 million people on live.
It's going to take a long time for that server to get blacklisted.

And I was thinking what if it's a server set up for friends.

Like the GOW1 games. Most of the hosts set them up to get friends in to fight randoms.
Then suddenly they start kicking people cause they get pissed off they die.

Give a normal person the power to boot people and he's going to do just that.

Just leave dedicated servers to the PC.

Just cause you run a server for X or Y game dose not mean you can moderate it,for live moderation would be done via live, X amounts of complaints leads to temp suspensions untill a mod can look it over.

You are running the game server you want more or less but the only thing you have control over are generic game type lists and what not. Moderation should be handled by live.

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

See, the thing is, what you're describing is called a "shitty server".
Wait, don't panic! It's okay.
Just put that server on your shitlist and play on another server.

Yeah but I'm surprised at how many PC dedicated servers are like that too.

You must have some shit luck then, cause I have honestly never joined a server where admins are like that.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Hum interesting comment on the potential of distributed server ownership. If consoles games had server version or a private companies that ran them and leased to people and then console connected to them it could lead to some interesting things. I'm not sure that it would be X-box live anymore though. Once we've distributed the costs and the admins/owners then we've effectively lost a centralized service and broke into a distributed system. It allows for differential service (i.e.e environment in servers) but it cannot be monitored by one group. If X-box live were more distributed then it would be impossible to monitor every server (or there would have to be so few servers that it would partially negate the benefits). I doubt if any company, especially Microsoft is going to claim ownership over a network of servers that they can't monitor. So this new system would have to be Non-Microsoft. Now, that not going to happen. Microsoft wants its money and wants to exert some control otherwise we wouldn't be discussing this. It's simply not possible for Microsoft to have the resources to allow distributed control and also maintain control. Microsoft's X-box live is a method of controlling and monitoring and it goes against that to loss that control. A new system might lead to good things (like how TF2 runs like a buttered Swiss pocket watch) but its not going to happen within the framework of X-box live and somehow I doubt if Microsoft is going to let X-box live go so I don't see anything changing any time soon.

 

[ImprovizoR]

So console multiplayer sucks compared to PC multiplayer. What else is new? PC always was and always will be the best platform for multiplayer. But even PC is suffering these days because developers port games from consoles too PC and they completely neglect the PC version. Just look at MW2. Lobbies? On a PC? Are you fuckin' kiddin' me? Pirated version of MW2 is better that the retail one. That's how serious PC gamers are. We don't allow rich companies to push us around like they do console gamers. PC community can do anything with any game. I'm glad Treyarch is making a CoD game with dedicated servers, and BOTS! Where did bots go all these years? They were possible in the mid 90's and now they are nowhere to be found.

 

[Asuka Soryu]

Eh, what's the point of complaining? Not like Micro$oft is gone to listen.

Not to mention that if you're willing to accept paying for small luxuries other people get for free, with a price hike, it's not likely you're gone to abandon Xbox Live 'cause it doesn't plan on giving you freedom.

I laughed when I got my 360 from a Pawn Shop and they wanted me to pay them to change the username. xD Something I could and did do for free on my PS3.


Face it, Micro$oft has you where they want, and they're not gone to let go, unless a large ammount of people stress their complaints and threaten to quit Live and even do so. 'Cause the only way Micro$oft will care is if all of a sudden, Live starts to tank as hundres of Live accounts are canceled after being told why people are quitting untill their demands are met.

 

[tzimize]

Very good article. Probably wont happen though, and I dont really care as all the multiplayer games I want to play are on PC anyway.

The few multiplayer games I play on console I play with a buddy or 3 in the couch next to me. I really dont get how people can use consoles for online play.

 

[kingmob]

Eh, what's the point of complaining? Not like Micro$oft is gone to listen.

Not to mention that if you're willing to accept paying for small luxuries other people get for free, with a price hike, it's not likely you're gone to abandon Xbox Live 'cause it doesn't plan on giving you freedom.

I laughed when I got my 360 from a Pawn Shop and they wanted me to pay them to change the username. xD Something I could and did do for free on my PS3.


Face it, Micro$oft has you where they want, and they're not gone to let go, unless a large ammount of people stress their complaints and threaten to quit Live and even do so. 'Cause the only way Micro$oft will care is if all of a sudden, Live starts to tank as hundres of Live accounts are canceled after being told why people are quitting untill their demands are met.

That's not how economy works. There is an absence of a competitor on the xbox platform itself, so these online features get muddled up with console exclusives, graphics quality, expenses etc. in the battle for the customer. That Microsoft is losing people because of these problems is undeniable, the question for them is of course how much this hurts them financially and if it is worth it for them to invest in the things that will get these people to play. Microsoft obviously says no and they are probably right in the short term.
What they are forgetting is that they are also saying "fuck you", since the customer knows these things are available for free and better on different platforms, but they are just stuck with it. It helps reinforce the appearance of Microsoft as an incorporate bad guy and further reduces their image, which already isn't that of a game loving, technically savvy, company.
Now try telling Blizzard, Bioware and Valve that such an image is economically useless...

This might turn out to be a PR nightmare, while PR was what won this console wars for the Wii.

My point is, a smart company would already have listened; the hidden value in having the best online space is immense. Google exists just for this reason (it was just a search engine for crying out loud).

 

[Ed.]

But who would pay $20 a month to run their own servers? I mean, it sounds like you pay to run a server but it's free to join other servers. Wouldn't everyone want to join servers, and only a few care enough to pay the cost? Because that sounds expensive. And then how would you play online if there were not enough servers?

I'll break this answer into two parts, for both questions you asked.

1) Who would pay for servers? A lot of people, in fact! $20, while not insignificant, is not much money to host a social network over which you are basically God. It is your server, no one else's. You can do whatever you want. Want custom textures, sound files, entire new game modes? You have the power to do that, and you can bring your friends along to play it, and their friends and those friends' friends.

2) How would you play online if there weren't enough servers? The principles of economics apply to this. The number of servers will naturally fluctuate with the number of active players. This is guided by the <url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand>invisible hand that governs supply and demand. If there are not enough servers, people will make them, for the aforementioned reasons. If there are too many servers, then many will simply be empty, which may cause the server owners to shut them down. The entire thing is self-regulating and shouldn't be a major concern.

Cool, thanks for the (fast!) response. First - whoa - I did not know you could do so much with dedicated servers! I thought it would just be a matter of, say, turning off the grenade launcher or stopping MLC classes in MW2, but.. wow and changing textures means you could make the game look even better, right?

The second part I get it a bit of economics. I guess this struck me as one of those times where free trade would break down - I can't think of a perfect example, but imagine if it were cheaper (and legal) for a company to dump their sewage into a river than get it treated for proper disposal, almost all companies would dump it. But then in the long run the river would get all polluted and maybe become too toxic for the factories to stay there. So it's best for everybody if nobody dumps in the river, but everyone will. (If that makes sense.)

I just thought that it would be like that for dedicated servers - like, I was expecting there to be a part about how the guy who buys the server charges people like $1 a month to join or something. Obviously the system does work because it exists.. I guess I was a bit surprise at it is all. Thanks again for the explanation though.

oh that is minor the stuff you can do on a\n open platform is immense put it this way this video is a heavily modded half life 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zW_-k4i_fsI
or another half life 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAR3NBbn-9I

this modding spawns totally new games as well counter strike, team fortress, Gmod all started as mods

And that's just from half life one series consoles cant do this because Microsoft and Sony wont let it happen.

 

[Negatempest]

I actually do believe that dedicated servers is possible for consoles. Star Wars Battlefront 2 had community servers on the PS2. MGO has dedicated servers as well(in a sense). Its not impossible and it would be a little different.

If you remember, Nintendo in the past did nearly the exact same thing, but with their cartridges about 10 years ago. This made developers look at the Playstation as a far better solution than what Nintendo was offering.
Now today a company (Valve) who was backing Microsoft is now giving its product to Sony. (Deja-vu?) Than it would be too late for Microsoft to explain how much better LIVE is over PSN when Sony has The Orange Box up to speed and LIVE doesn't.

 

[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.