This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Anyone else think that Microsoft is not losing any money at all when it comes to

#51TheArcadePosted 12/6/2012 8:57:51 PM
TheBlueStig posted...
TheArcade posted...
Microsoft gives out free bandwidth to devs because it's paid for by the consumer, any other online service free or not would usually charge.


All 3 hardware makers charge per-gigabyte bandwidth fees, Sony's is the highest at 16 cents per gigabyte for the life of the file on the network. Demos are only charged for 6 months, all other files pay for life.

Very well I take your point.
---
Greatest Shows of All Time.
Avatar: The Last Airbender, SWAT Kats, Sailor Moon, Tetsuwan Atom 2K3, Transformers, Spiderfriends
#52NintendologicalPosted 12/6/2012 9:13:47 PM
TheBlueStig posted...

You might want to learn what a "dedicated server" is before you claim they're run by devs/publishers. It just means that it's a server run by itself on a dedicated box and not hosted on someone's PC desktop while they're playing at the same time.

PC game servers are mostly run by FANS paying for the servers out of their own pockets, not the developers or publishers.

You won't find Id Software funding Quake 2 or Quake 3 servers this far beyond the end of the game's viable popularity. The fans are running those servers.
.


That was a very long list of irrelevant points.

- I never said dedicated servers were company run. I merely said that a number of Steam games offer sorting options for various types of servers, among them, dedicated and those that support VAC. Your original point was that people pay Xbox Live fees for access to dedicated servers. I bring up the point that PC games on Steam feature dedicated servers and your rebuttal is to fruitlessly mention who runs which servers rather than recognizing the fact that Steam does not charge for server access. Not even Valve games have a charge (DotA 2 comes to mind).

- What does the quality of VAC have to do with the argument that Xbox Live fees are unnecessary when similar services exist, free-of-charge to the end user? Not that I am denying the validity of your complaint (for I care neither for your complaint or its truth value), but it has no bearing on the discussion at hand. I take partial fault for even mentioning VAC to begin with. It was a teivial detail and I'd have done better to simply mention that Steam games often allow you to browse dedicated and non-dedicated servers.
---
Your uncle was so dumb he paid the full price of a new PS2 to rent it for a week? Your family tree must be a straight line" - Finlandia
#53TheBlueStigPosted 12/7/2012 9:11:38 AM
Nintendological posted...
- I never said dedicated servers were company run. I merely said that a number of Steam games offer sorting options for various types of servers, among them, dedicated and those that support VAC. Your original point was that people pay Xbox Live fees for access to dedicated servers. I bring up the point that PC games on Steam feature dedicated servers and your rebuttal is to fruitlessly mention who runs which servers rather than recognizing the fact that Steam does not charge for server access. Not even Valve games have a charge (DotA 2 comes to mind).

The old phrase "you get what you pay for" works here.

If games like Forza 2 were available on PC would you find their online servers still running today? No, you wouldn't. PC online servers go extinct when the popularity of the game dies, and all that's left are modders, hackers, and people with obsolete PC's that can't play something newer.


- What does the quality of VAC have to do with the argument that Xbox Live fees are unnecessary when similar services exist, free-of-charge to the end user? Not that I am denying the validity of your complaint (for I care neither for your complaint or its truth value), but it has no bearing on the discussion at hand. I take partial fault for even mentioning VAC to begin with. It was a teivial detail and I'd have done better to simply mention that Steam games often allow you to browse dedicated and non-dedicated servers.

Again, you get what you pay for, and since you don't pay for Steam, the hacker protection is ZERO. The server longevity protection is ZERO.

On the PSN there's a huge list of games that have had their servers shut down because nobody's paying for them.

Neither Steam nor the PSN are perfect just because you don't pay for them, they're worse off for it.
#54NintendologicalPosted 12/7/2012 10:47:40 AM
TheBlueStig posted...

Again, you get what you pay for, and since you don't pay for Steam, the hacker protection is ZERO. The server longevity protection is ZERO.

On the PSN there's a huge list of games that have had their servers shut down because nobody's paying for them.

Neither Steam nor the PSN are perfect just because you don't pay for them, they're worse off for it.


You keep telling yourself that. You do realize that Xbox Live has been hacked multiple times, right? Also, PC guarantees server longevity because users can host their own games. Like I said, good luck playing Halo 2 on Xbox Live. Good luck playing Phantasy Star Online on Xbox Live.

But what's this? People still play Phantasy Star Online Blue Burst on the PC?

http://www.schtserv.com/connect-psobb.php

Quake II still has servers?

http://q2servers.com/

That's right, only consoles lose the ability to play online. PC games last for as long as you like, even if it is online matches with your friends irl or online. You pay $60 a year for a service for no real reason other than the fact that Microsoft can get away woth it. There is no guaranteeof longevity. That's your imagination. And I don't want to turn this into a PC vs. Console debate, so I'll just stick to pointing out that fifteen years later, I can still play Quake II online.
---
Your uncle was so dumb he paid the full price of a new PS2 to rent it for a week? Your family tree must be a straight line" - Finlandia
#55_OujiDoza_Posted 12/7/2012 10:56:06 AM
Nintendological posted...
That's right, only consoles lose the ability to play online. PC games last for as long as you like, even if it is online matches with your friends irl or online. You pay $60 a year for a service for no real reason other than the fact that Microsoft can get away woth it. There is no guaranteeof longevity. That's your imagination. And I don't want to turn this into a PC vs. Console debate, so I'll just stick to pointing out that fifteen years later, I can still play Quake II online.


Gotta say, he's got a point there.
---
GT: PrinceDoZeR
http://is.gd/vVHjV1
#56TheBlueStigPosted 12/7/2012 11:19:38 AM
Nintendological posted...
You keep telling yourself that. You do realize that Xbox Live has been hacked multiple times, right? Also, PC guarantees server longevity because users can host their own games. Like I said, good luck playing Halo 2 on Xbox Live. Good luck playing Phantasy Star Online on Xbox Live.

If any of those PC servers are on Steam's list, they're forced to maintain the latest updates by Steam, a practice that actively tries to kill game modding every time you start the game up. Game mods can drastically extend the life of any game, but developers are trying to kill mods now more than ever before because it cuts into their profits on overpriced DLC packs.

As far as the hackers go, M$ runs hardware ban sweeps on a regular basis, which means that any hacker will have to buy a whole new system to keep hacking. Steam doesn't run regular cheat sweeps or ban hardware and they never will ban hardware. Steam hackers just make a new username and keep right on hacking. The only people that VAC ever catches are clueless noobs who find an outdated VAC hack and try to use it.


But what's this? People still play Phantasy Star Online Blue Burst on the PC?

http://www.schtserv.com/connect-psobb.php

Quake II still has servers?

http://q2servers.com/

All paid for and run BY THE FANS, and there's nowhere near as many servers as any other new game and they're not policed by any regulated anti-cheat system.


That's right, only consoles lose the ability to play online. PC games last for as long as you like, even if it is online matches with your friends irl or online. You pay $60 a year for a service for no real reason other than the fact that Microsoft can get away woth it. There is no guaranteeof longevity. That's your imagination. And I don't want to turn this into a PC vs. Console debate, so I'll just stick to pointing out that fifteen years later, I can still play Quake II online.

The only people you'll be playing Q2 against will be hackers and people with hardware SO old and obsolete that they can't play anything else. I wouldn't exactly call that a gameplay experience I would want.

Here's what you're not understanding, services you pay for have better cheat policing and servers that last far longer than services you don't pay for because your money is keeping those game servers online, that's what I've been trying to say from the beginning.

Do you get it yet? Will you ever get it?