What's Wrong with Xbox Live?

[Vestsao]

Honestly I think it should be free!

 

[Roboto]

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.

And anyway Microsoft wouldn't want people boosting achievements and stuff.

I can just see MS outright saying no and I can't blame them... Live is more of a guided service than an open platform.

We here in the PC world call them rankup servers, but yeah what you said

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

So, xbox's problem is that it's not PC gaming?

 

[KissofKetchup]

First off, I honestly doubt that a great number of people would fork over the cash for a dedicated server to run, at least not in the numbers that PC gamers would have. I find this to be true mainly because of the different kind of gamer that is the Xbox 360 player. Many, if not most, don't even know how to run a server. They're the college kid, Madden, Halo, and COD player that's majoring in buisness or sports management. Console gaming in general is better suited to the less technologically adept (not that they are totally inept at using technology, it's just that I doubt any of them have ever built a computer or anything like that).

Secondly, on a less serious note, moderators on internet forums does not always mean civilized, mature discussion, just look at 4chan. lol

 

[Macflash]

If players had to run their servers, they'd just be like the servers in PC games. Laggy, annoying, and formidable to the unexperienced player. Say you want to find play a game, you've had a long day. You sit down to play your favorite console game, and to find a match you have to sift through lists of thousands of servers to try to find one playing a game settings you like that has a decent ping and might have people of your same skill level, and then the countless other factors. Or you just want to be in a game with your friends, you don't want to deal with finding a server with room for all of you and a place where you can be on the same team, that has a good ping for all your friends, etc.

Basically, if you want dedicated self run servers, go play a PC game. Servers have more customization options there, you can run custom mods which are impossible on the Xbox, because they won't allow you to download the necessary files and whatnot. And you can play there for free.

I will stick to letting the Microsoft servers find me a nice multiplayer match, so I can focus on shooting random strangers in their virtual face.

 

[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.

"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.

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.

The least Microsoft could do is have dedicated servers available on GOLD membership and have just peer-2-peer online for the free silver membership. Many games are able to easily operate on both types of network protocols.

Are Xbox 360 gamers fundamentally more immature and anti-social than PC gamers that even the best of them cannot consistently be trusted to host servers? Well i wouldn't know as no one has ever given them the opportunity and frankly the way that console gamers are treated by Microsoft it certainly doesn't inspire positive gaming attitudes like: fair play, good sportsmanship, dedication and commitment to maintaining systems.

 

[Treblaine]

If players had to run their servers, they'd just be like the servers in PC games. Laggy, annoying, and formidable to the unexperienced player. Say you want to find play a game, you've had a long day. You sit down to play your favorite console game, and to find a match you have to sift through lists of thousands of servers to try to find one playing a game settings you like that has a decent ping and might have people of your same skill level, and then the countless other factors. Or you just want to be in a game with your friends, you don't want to deal with finding a server with room for all of you and a place where you can be on the same team, that has a good ping for all your friends, etc.

Basically, if you want dedicated self run servers, go play a PC game. Servers have more customization options there, you can run custom mods which are impossible on the Xbox, because they won't allow you to download the necessary files and whatnot. And you can play there for free.

I will stick to letting the Microsoft servers find me a nice multiplayer match, so I can focus on shooting random strangers in their virtual face.

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.

 

[Aegwadar]

Flexibility was never really in the cards for consoles... Why would the producers of the consoles be any more flexible? They're is likely a valid reason for not allowing the DLC via Valve's side.

I agree that a increased ability to navigate servers via Xbox Live would friggin rock, but Microsoft's apparent neutral stance is starting to turn towards the negative. They don't really seem to justify actions, or for that matter, care to explain there "mission statement" with regards to Xbox Live.... Eh, still gonna go to the Xbox for my shooters.

Good article!

 

[Aurgelmir]

Not only that, they charge us, and most games still use a player host based system...

 

[Narcogen]

It's not the only bit that's wrong, but it's worth pointing out that community run servers would not have saved Halo 2 from shutdown, because servers were not the issue.

While Halo 2 has a client-server networking model, it doesn't take over until the match is set up, and one of the client Xboxes is chosen as the server. The job of setting things up is handled by Xbox Live's servers (so you can login to your XBL profile on your Xbox) and Bungie's matchmaking servers (that handles playlists and player rankings).

Halo 2 was shut off because changes to Microsoft's XBL service were made that were not being backported to the original Xbox. Online support for all original consoles and original games in emulation was dropped on that day-- regardless of the number of Xbox clients out there that were still potential "community run" servers.

To keep Halo 2 running you wouldn't have needed instances of Halo 2 running, since those were already irrelevant. You'd have needed an emulator of Microsoft's original Xbox Live service running.

That is all aside from the point that community run servers are not actually better, unless you run one yourself. There's no reason to believe the average community moderator would be much better than the average Halo player, considering that you wouldn't run such a server unless you're a player of the game.

The whole point of XBL was to address things that were missing and broken in the dedicated server model, and taking a step backwards makes no sense.

Matching by skill? Can't happen with dedicated servers, since they don't communicate to each other.

Reliable, persistent statistics about all games you've played ever, at a central location so you can review and share? Can't happen with dedicated servers, unless you figure out how to crack open your console and do analysis on your own logfiles. The server logfiles are spread around with the servers. They don't talk to each other, and you have no idea when one will go offline, become unavailable, or be retired. Not to mention that now the developers can't do features like playlists, because the problem of managing optional map packs has now been multiplied by the size of your community moderated server population. Do they have to pay for maps? Do they get them all for free?

All Xbox Live games use Xbox consoles as servers. What are these community servers going to run on? How can individual console owners/XBL subscribers be given the kind of administrative access over multiplayer games running on their console without compromising safety and fairness? Shouldn't server admins be prohibited from playing on their own server, for fear of unfair advantage? If you restrict an admin's access, in what way is it actually a dedicated server?

I'm not really sure what Shamus is really asking Microsoft to do-- and I'm not sure he does, either, beyond a vague sort of nostalgia for the halcyon days of PC gaming where you spent more time looking for servers than actually playing.

What I am sure of, is that there is no way which matters where that model is better than what XBL does.

As for TF2-- Microsoft won't let a rival platform owner (Steam is a platform) distribute content for free through XBL. This is a surprise?

Many have noticed that in order to keep pace, if a publisher gives away something on PS3, they make it free on XBL as well. Of course, Valve has a nice excuse there-- they like PSN, but updating TF2 on PS3 is EA's job. So PC gamers are downloading multiple updates per day (wait, this is an advantage?) and console owners get nothing-- but somehow that's EA's fault and Microsoft's fault, not Valve's fault or Sony's fault, and of course there is no way this is actually just part of a power struggle between Microsoft and Valve over pricing and distribution. No way. Not a bit of it. Shame on you for thinking it.

 

[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".