Since most games on Xbox 360 were P2P, why were we paying for Xbox live?

#81Skynet82997Posted 9/6/2013 11:44:08 AM
lilj812 posted...


Whoa? Peer to peer sucks?? What??? Have you ever heard of a server browser? Do you need help learning about the advamtages of a server browser? How does Peer to peer suck? I'd love to know that.


Player-Hosted Servers

The vast majority of games will pick a player and have them act as the server for the match. This means that all of the other players talk to them to decide what happens in a game. When you shoot your gun, the server decides if that is allowed and then tells everyone what you hit. Letís agree to call this system ďplayer-hostedĒ for simplicity.

What kinds of problems do you get with player-hosted servers?


What if one player has great bandwidth, but itís laggy? Games are having to choose between different player hosts, and have to make hard decisions about which one should be the host, with two different measurements Ė bandwidth and latency. Sometimes it will pick a host who has good bandwidth, but whose latency isnít ideal. But we donít want the game to make compromises on lag and we really want the game to feel the same every time we play. We really donít want to worry about this stuff Ė we just want to play and have the game feel good.

What about host advantage? The player-host has the game running locally on their machine, so they get super low latency access to the game world. Youíve probably seen this in action as some player seems to see you long before you get to see them or their bullets hit you before yours hit them. That sucks. Nobody should have an artificial advantage in a competitive multiplayer game.
What if the player-host is a cheater? Since the host gets to make decisions about kills, XP, and unlocks and such, itís really bad if they abuse their power to wipe out your stats, or they cheat by flying around maps and insta-killing people. Itís infuriating, in fact.

What if the host disconnects? In the ďbest caseĒ for this, you can do host migration if thereís another player who has enough bandwidth and everyone else can talk to them. If you hit that jackpot, you can migrate from the old host to the new one, which pauses the game and then unpauses when the new player-host is ready to start acting as the server. This isnít a fun process, and it can fail.

What if the hostís bandwidth disappears? The game tested the hostís bandwidth at some point and decided that they had enough to host. But someone at their house is now torrenting files and their roommate is streaming Netflix. That ďgreatĒ bandwidth the game detected earlier is now awful bandwidth, and the other players are lagging halfway through a match.

---
XBL Gamertag - SkyNett / PSN ID - SkyeNett / Clan - TheSynndicate
#82Skynet82997Posted 9/6/2013 11:44:37 AM
What if some players canít talk to the host? You know all that ďOpen NATĒ stuff? Your home internet router is generally trying really hard to keep bad people out, and games are sort of a weird case where the game is trying to get your router to cooperate and let other players create connections INTO your network. Games need to check if every player can talk to the host and if one canít then that host wonít work. It makes matchmaking slower, and we hate that. Also, by telling you to open up your router, the game is asking you to reduce the security of your home network in order to make the game work. It would be great if you didnít have to compromise your security in order to play games.

What if nobody has enough bandwidth? You got a great group of players together, but nobody has enough bandwidth to actually host a game. You can work around this by compromising your matchmaking a little to make sure that each lobby has a player in it that can be a host. But we donít actually want compromised matchmaking, so this isnít a good fix.

What about players who are paying for their bandwidth or have bandwidth caps? If you have a bandwidth cap on your home internet connection, or even worse, youíre paying for your bandwidth, what happens when you play a game and later find out that the game thought you were an awesome host? Your home internet connection is now slow or you have a huge bill waiting.
So if Iím hosting, my machine is doing all this extra work on behalf of everyone else? Yes! You are doing more work on your CPU than all of the other players are. This means the game isnít as cool looking as it could be and everyone else has extra CPU just sitting there. Or worse, their game actually looks better than yours! We think the game should be consistent on every machine in a match. Donít punish the host with a worse game or leave all of that extra CPU sitting empty on the other players machines.

Okay, so player-hosted servers have a lot of downsides. So why do so many games use them?

They have one really big upside Ė it doesnít cost money to run the servers! Running hundreds of thousands of servers can be extremely expensive. EXTREMELY expensive. Like ďoh my god we canít afford thatĒ expensive. So your player experience gets compromised to save (large amounts of) money.

---
XBL Gamertag - SkyNett / PSN ID - SkyeNett / Clan - TheSynndicate
#83Ch3wyPosted 9/6/2013 11:46:45 AM
lilj812 posted...
Ch3wy posted...
lilj812 posted...
Ch3wy posted...
Yes, peer to peer sucks. And no, I can't go into the future and prove the faster download speeds. But given they're putting a lot more money into it, it's gonna be the case. That's how things work.

If you can't see any relationship between my answer and your question, that sounds like a personal problem. I'm not going to tutor you here.

You can sit here and deny things because there isn't absolute proof but it doesn't change the reality of things.


Whoa? Peer to peer sucks?? What??? Have you ever heard of a server browser? Do you need help learning about the advamtages of a server browser? How does Peer to peer suck? I'd love to know that.

Also, I didn't want you to answer something close to the question, I wanted you to answer the question. But since you won't, whatever lol. Just another question you can't answer.

And since you can't prove the future, you can't state it as reality. Because, what if you're wrong and PSN has faster and more stable everything? That's a possibility, isn't it?


You don't think you can have a server browser with dedicated servers? What?

I did answer the question. You pretended it wasn't an answer, either due to intentional ignorance or lack of comprehension. Like I said, not my problem.

And what if I'm wrong about the world not exploding tomorrow? That's a possibility, isn't it?
It's going to be a reality. Your skepticism wont change that.


When did I say that? Are you kidding me? Putting words in my mouth again? You said Peer to peer sucks. Well, I can only assume you would say that not knowing how a server browser works. Never did I say server browsers were exclusively peer to peer did I?

You could be right about the world exploding tomorrow actually lol. We don't know, that's the future. You saying "it's going to be reality" is a factual statement but it can't be proven with facts, so you look dumb saying it. You are basically calling yourself a prophet since you are saying you can accurately predict the future of both consoles before they even release. You look very dumb saying that. Very, very dumb.

If you don't think it's exclusive to peer to peer, why would you even mention it? I never said peer to peer sucks because of the server browsing options. Anyone who knows anything about networking knows that peer to peer sucks. That's a fact.

I don't see how I'm dumb for not putting a disclaimer that there is an extremely minute probability that the words I'm saying may be wrong. You'd call a man a prophet for saying the world isn't going to blow up tomorrow? FFS man...
---
Every time you point out that something is an opinion Jesus shoots a kitten in the face.
#84lilj812(Topic Creator)Posted 9/6/2013 11:47:08 AM
Skynet82997 posted...
What if some players canít talk to the host? You know all that ďOpen NATĒ stuff? Your home internet router is generally trying really hard to keep bad people out, and games are sort of a weird case where the game is trying to get your router to cooperate and let other players create connections INTO your network. Games need to check if every player can talk to the host and if one canít then that host wonít work. It makes matchmaking slower, and we hate that. Also, by telling you to open up your router, the game is asking you to reduce the security of your home network in order to make the game work. It would be great if you didnít have to compromise your security in order to play games.

What if nobody has enough bandwidth? You got a great group of players together, but nobody has enough bandwidth to actually host a game. You can work around this by compromising your matchmaking a little to make sure that each lobby has a player in it that can be a host. But we donít actually want compromised matchmaking, so this isnít a good fix.

What about players who are paying for their bandwidth or have bandwidth caps? If you have a bandwidth cap on your home internet connection, or even worse, youíre paying for your bandwidth, what happens when you play a game and later find out that the game thought you were an awesome host? Your home internet connection is now slow or you have a huge bill waiting.
So if Iím hosting, my machine is doing all this extra work on behalf of everyone else? Yes! You are doing more work on your CPU than all of the other players are. This means the game isnít as cool looking as it could be and everyone else has extra CPU just sitting there. Or worse, their game actually looks better than yours! We think the game should be consistent on every machine in a match. Donít punish the host with a worse game or leave all of that extra CPU sitting empty on the other players machines.

Okay, so player-hosted servers have a lot of downsides. So why do so many games use them?

They have one really big upside Ė it doesnít cost money to run the servers! Running hundreds of thousands of servers can be extremely expensive. EXTREMELY expensive. Like ďoh my god we canít afford thatĒ expensive. So your player experience gets compromised to save (large amounts of) money.


Oh, I didn't read this, any of this. but don't worry, you can filter by ping more often than not. So you don't need to worry about any of the problems of player hosted servers if you go by ping. Sometimes things get shotty, but for the most part, nah.
---
"World's best heel and you don't even know it"
#85lilj812(Topic Creator)Posted 9/6/2013 11:55:28 AM
Ch3wy posted...
lilj812 posted...
Ch3wy posted...
lilj812 posted...
Ch3wy posted...
Yes, peer to peer sucks. And no, I can't go into the future and prove the faster download speeds. But given they're putting a lot more money into it, it's gonna be the case. That's how things work.

If you can't see any relationship between my answer and your question, that sounds like a personal problem. I'm not going to tutor you here.

You can sit here and deny things because there isn't absolute proof but it doesn't change the reality of things.


Whoa? Peer to peer sucks?? What??? Have you ever heard of a server browser? Do you need help learning about the advamtages of a server browser? How does Peer to peer suck? I'd love to know that.

Also, I didn't want you to answer something close to the question, I wanted you to answer the question. But since you won't, whatever lol. Just another question you can't answer.

And since you can't prove the future, you can't state it as reality. Because, what if you're wrong and PSN has faster and more stable everything? That's a possibility, isn't it?


You don't think you can have a server browser with dedicated servers? What?

I did answer the question. You pretended it wasn't an answer, either due to intentional ignorance or lack of comprehension. Like I said, not my problem.

And what if I'm wrong about the world not exploding tomorrow? That's a possibility, isn't it?
It's going to be a reality. Your skepticism wont change that.


When did I say that? Are you kidding me? Putting words in my mouth again? You said Peer to peer sucks. Well, I can only assume you would say that not knowing how a server browser works. Never did I say server browsers were exclusively peer to peer did I?

You could be right about the world exploding tomorrow actually lol. We don't know, that's the future. You saying "it's going to be reality" is a factual statement but it can't be proven with facts, so you look dumb saying it. You are basically calling yourself a prophet since you are saying you can accurately predict the future of both consoles before they even release. You look very dumb saying that. Very, very dumb.

If you don't think it's exclusive to peer to peer, why would you even mention it? I never said peer to peer sucks because of the server browsing options. Anyone who knows anything about networking knows that peer to peer sucks. That's a fact.

I don't see how I'm dumb for not putting a disclaimer that there is an extremely minute probability that the words I'm saying may be wrong. You'd call a man a prophet for saying the world isn't going to blow up tomorrow? FFS man...


That last sentence of your shows extremely poor reading comprehension. My sentence was simply: "You are basically calling yourself a prophet since you are saying you can accurately predict the future of both consoles before they even release."

Then you respond with: "You'd call a man a prophet for saying the world isn't going to blow up tomorrow? FFS man..." Sir... this is why I said you look dumb, and you just proved it again.

Also, I mentioned server browsers because server browsers (usually) have an awesome feature to filter by ping. You can find a server with a low ping and never run into any problems while playing your games. Isn't that GREAT?!
---
"World's best heel and you don't even know it"
#86bob15xPosted 9/6/2013 11:59:32 AM
ejay8320 posted...
bob15x posted...
ejay8320 posted...
Chewy, until there are some actual experience with both the PS4 and Xbox ones online gaming stating which is better is mere speculation.

Now you can make an educated prediction, but its still no way to know how good each is until both are out.

So stop claiming the online is better on Xbox one like its a fact...

\
it is a fair assumption. MS is the innovator when it comes to online and Sony is the follower. Even a sony fanboy has to agree to that. Sony was pulled into online by MS, probably kicking and screaming, but Sony has gone great strides.
But it has always been MS first when it came to online.

so it is a fair assumption that live will be better this gen at least that is guaranteed at the start of the generation. Sony will catch up, in fact they have no choice now that they are charging for the service.


And this is where your post is different from Chewy, I never stated it was an unfair or ludicrous assumption. I just wanted him to stop stating it like its a solid fact. You also accept its still an assumption, but one with a high probability and your willing to see that Sony will, probably, eventually catch up or not be too far behind...


absolutes are a pet peeve of mine on this board. We are all guilty of it here and there but some people its all they do.
#87Ch3wyPosted 9/6/2013 11:59:42 AM
lilj812 posted...


That last sentence of your shows extremely poor reading comprehension. My sentence was simply: "You are basically calling yourself a prophet since you are saying you can accurately predict the future of both consoles before they even release."

Then you respond with: "You'd call a man a prophet for saying the world isn't going to blow up tomorrow? FFS man..." Sir... this is why I said you look dumb, and you just proved it again.

Also, I mentioned server browsers because server browsers (usually) have an awesome feature to filter by ping. You can find a server with a low ping and never run into any problems while playing your games. Isn't that GREAT?!


Ping isn't a static thing, and there is still host advantage. Even if he only has a 50ms advantage over you, there are still other players on the server he will have an advantage over.

Trust me I'm not having trouble comprehending anything here. You're saying I was calling myself a prophet because i was saying things in the future were going to happen, even though they are extremely probable. I'm basically doing the same thing as someone saying the world won't blow up tomorrow, so it goes to say that you'd think that's some kind of prophetic statement as well.
---
Every time you point out that something is an opinion Jesus shoots a kitten in the face.
#88Ch3wyPosted 9/6/2013 12:09:14 PM
bob15x posted...
ejay8320 posted...
bob15x posted...
ejay8320 posted...
Chewy, until there are some actual experience with both the PS4 and Xbox ones online gaming stating which is better is mere speculation.

Now you can make an educated prediction, but its still no way to know how good each is until both are out.

So stop claiming the online is better on Xbox one like its a fact...

\
it is a fair assumption. MS is the innovator when it comes to online and Sony is the follower. Even a sony fanboy has to agree to that. Sony was pulled into online by MS, probably kicking and screaming, but Sony has gone great strides.
But it has always been MS first when it came to online.

so it is a fair assumption that live will be better this gen at least that is guaranteed at the start of the generation. Sony will catch up, in fact they have no choice now that they are charging for the service.


And this is where your post is different from Chewy, I never stated it was an unfair or ludicrous assumption. I just wanted him to stop stating it like its a solid fact. You also accept its still an assumption, but one with a high probability and your willing to see that Sony will, probably, eventually catch up or not be too far behind...


absolutes are a pet peeve of mine on this board. We are all guilty of it here and there but some people its all they do.


It's people making assumptions that everyone is talking in absolutes that is a pet peeve of mine.

Let's say someone says an unprovable statement without adding any disclaimer that they may be wrong or that it's not a fact....

What's the more logical interpretation?
A. They didn't know their statement was unprovable and wanted it to be taken literally and every word with 100% certainty, no exceptions.
B. They might not have been completely literal or meant to imply anything concrete. Maybe them saying something is true might mean that they're saying it's most likely true or they think it is true.

Choosing A. is pretty condescending in my eyes, not to mention illogical. People are having conversations here, not publishing scientific journals.
---
Every time you point out that something is an opinion Jesus shoots a kitten in the face.
#89lilj812(Topic Creator)Posted 9/6/2013 12:29:13 PM
Ch3wy posted...
lilj812 posted...


That last sentence of your shows extremely poor reading comprehension. My sentence was simply: "You are basically calling yourself a prophet since you are saying you can accurately predict the future of both consoles before they even release."

Then you respond with: "You'd call a man a prophet for saying the world isn't going to blow up tomorrow? FFS man..."
Sir... this is why I said you look dumb, and you just proved it again.

Also, I mentioned server browsers because server browsers (usually) have an awesome feature to filter by ping. You can find a server with a low ping and never run into any problems while playing your games. Isn't that GREAT?!


Ping isn't a static thing, and there is still host advantage. Even if he only has a 50ms advantage over you, there are still other players on the server he will have an advantage over.

Trust me I'm not having trouble comprehending anything here. You're saying I was calling myself a prophet because i was saying things in the future were going to happen, even though they are extremely probable. I'm basically doing the same thing as someone saying the world won't blow up tomorrow, so it goes to say that you'd think that's some kind of prophetic statement as well.


No, that's a lie and you need to stop. look at the bolded. I quoted what I said and you're response. You then quote that and say that something else happened when the evidence of what happened is in what you quoted. Sir, you are looking very dumb yet again, and you also are a liar.

Now, if you find a stable server, there is also another feature of a server browser called favorites.... see where I'm going?
---
"World's best heel and you don't even know it"
#90Enix BelmontPosted 9/6/2013 12:39:25 PM
This is an honestly good question.

I pay for PS+ and Xbox live gold, and I am a fan of both - but Xbox live easily has much better connections 80% of the time, and worse connections only in one instance(persona 4 arena). Why is this? I have no idea.

If I had to guess? Xbox 360's didn't come with wireless capabilities, PS3 did. Forcing most players to use wired, which is far more stable and lagless. Many developers also probably focus more on the netcode for 360 versions of games, due to being the more popular online multi console? I've seen games where the netcode is drastically different on both consoles(persona 4 arena), so I'm sure that despite both being peer to peer, taking advantage of both systems network capabilities is different, and judging by the average multiplat game, more challenging on the PS3.

Just speculation, and no, it doesn't really tell us why we need to pay for Live. All these are unrelated to giving them money. But I think many people who spend much time online on both can agree live is more consistent - although I suppose it depends on the games.
---
'Come fight beside me,' I said to myself, and although it doesn't make sense, I held my own hand as a small sign of trust, and together I made my defense.