Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
PlayStation (Games) XBox (Games) Entertainment Games

Should Online Console Games Have Dedicated Servers? 69

Thanks to GameSpot for its 'GameSpotting' editorial discussing the problems of online console gaming without dedicated servers. The author points out: "Let's consider the top upcoming shooters on both the PS2 and the Xbox: Killzone and Halo 2... the cold, hard fact is that these games will only offer a maximum of 12- and 16-player online multiplayer, respectively. In other words, if you can find a good nearby server, you'll be playing a game that isn't fundamentally different than what we've been playing for about eight years on the PC in Quake 1." He continues by contrasting this to the PC experience: "EA has promised that the upcoming Battlefield 2, currently scheduled to ship in the first part of 2005, will have more than 100 simultaneous players", before suggesting: "The bottom line is that console games need dedicated servers. As it stands today, only individual Xboxes are serving matches while simultaneously allowing the host to play. You simply cannot run a 24- or 32-player game with just a 733MHz processor and 64MB of system RAM available, hooked up to a potentially flaky cable or DSL line."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Should Online Console Games Have Dedicated Servers?

Comments Filter:
  • by *weasel ( 174362 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @10:15AM (#9365528)
    With the PS2 or PC you get the privilege of playing on people's laggy analog modems - along with poorly secured protocols that can, and have been, repeatedly hacked. Sure PC internet gaming can have good servers and good connections -- but it comes with a PITA I don't have to deal with.

    Consoles should have seperate servers because a console can ensure the integrity of the experience. I get no HPBs, headshot scripts, wallhacks when I play counterstrike on XBL.

    I can get out-of-game invites that don't cause compatability problems or suck performance like Gamespy does.

    I get voice comm in every title.
    Then there's a myriad of new and smaller bells and whistles it's got - but those weren't there when I made my purchasing decision, and frankly - they're insignificant compared to the big 3 of quality/security, out-of-game invites, and voice comm.

    That's the quality of service I pay $50 a year for. If you're going to slam the service, apparently without ever having tried it, or knowing much about it, you could at least get the numbers accurate.
  • by MindStalker ( 22827 ) <mindstalker@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @10:31AM (#9365732) Journal
    Well they could impliment a master server honor system also Americas Army. Hopefully they will.
    For the uninitiated, basically you create characters and have to go through a single player training exercise in order to play at all. And the better you do on training and the more training you do (there is optional additional training for medic and special ops and such) the more abilities you have in the game. This makes it harder to have throwaway identities. Also you start out with 10 honor points, you if you go under 9 points you have to goto special low honor servers which are basically group training exercises. And as you gain honor for playig well you get more rank and ability to command.
  • by BenjyD ( 316700 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @10:43AM (#9365903)
    Yes, the really large, official servers suck big time. The EA 64 player servers are mostly too laggy to play on when full - updating once or twice a second is not exactly good for aiming.
    That said, on maps with a well defined structure like Tobruk and Battle of the Bulge, I find large games (~40-50 players) can be great fun. The structure of the map encourages some limited team work, so you end up with large-scale gunfights and semi-coordinated attacks.
    Of course, large servers with stupid maps like Stalingrad and Berlin aren't worth playing on.
  • by drewmca ( 611245 ) on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @01:28PM (#9367973)
    Wrong. When you host a game on xbox live, you are hosting it on your machine. If you select the "dedicated" option available in most games, then your machine becomes a dedicated server and you can't actually play yourself. In some games, like Unreal Championship, Microsoft provides their own dedicated servers, but as far as I know, those are just dedicated xboxes. Either way, they're few and far between, and only on some games. 90% of the time when you are playing on xbox live, it is a game actually hosted on another person's machine. Do the research and you'll see it's true.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 08, 2004 @05:16PM (#9370554)
    Neverwinter nights supports this actually.
    You can establish a "portal" to other servers. You have them link back to you and your set.

There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.

Working...