PSN does 256, Xbox Live does 24?.

After playing Battlefield 1943 I realised i've never played a game with this many players on xbox live before. While PSN has Resistance which has 64 players and other games with more players. now M.A.G is going to have 256. If we pay for xbox live why can't it match psn in terms of players?.

Frontlines: Fuel of War does 50, though that's multiplat. Perfect Dark Zero does 32 and that's a launch 360 game, yeah, 360 needs more players.

Its because there are no dedicated servers, which is sad sense you actually pay for XBL

..because more doen't always mean better? I love small matches, 2v2's and 4v4s.

I can think of more games that have small teams that are wel known and popular than ones that have loads of people online.

For example Halo blows Resistence out the water. And gears of war nocks killzone 2 sideways. This is about the only ammo ps3 fanboys seem to have they've got it drilled into their head that graphics>all size>all and it's not true.

Enjoy your 30on30, theres a reason R2 is long forgotten and a game like Halo lives on to this day. QUALITY is what matters. It's something sony needs to figure out if there ever going to match 360 exclusives. Its not that Live *cant* do it. Of course it can with dedicated servers its more than possible it's more a case of how do you make a game work with tons of people and not turn into a giant cluster**** like kz2/r2

2 words, Dedicated Servers. MS dosent require the Dervs to put up dedicated servers for there games causing lag and the inability to have large amounts of players on a game. Why are you paying for Live again?djsifer01

2 words, Dedicated Servers. MS dosent require the Dervs to put up dedicated servers for there games causing lag and the inability to have large amounts of players on a game. Why are you paying for Live again?djsifer01

More sony fanboy dribble. If you listen to this guy every game on PSN that isn't first party is a laggy load of junk because it's not on a dedicated server either.

Its because there are no dedicated servers, which is sad sense you actually pay for XBL

thelastguy

2 words, Dedicated Servers. MS dosent require the Dervs to put up dedicated servers for there games causing lag and the inability to have large amounts of players on a game. Why are you paying for Live again?djsifer01

[QUOTE="thelastguy"]

Its because there are no dedicated servers, which is sad sense you actually pay for XBL

WilliamRLBaker

Which is really sad

I can think of more games that have small teams that are wel known and popular than ones that have loads of people online.

For example Halo blows Resistence out the water. And gears of war nocks killzone 2 sideways. This is about the only ammo ps3 fanboys seem to have they've got it drilled into their head that graphics>all size>all and it's not true.

Enjoy your 30on30, theres a reason R2 is long forgotten and a game like Halo lives on to this day. QUALITY is what matters. It's something sony needs to figure out if there ever going to match 360 exclusives. Its not that Live *cant* do it. Of course it can with dedicated servers its more than possible it's more a case of how do you make a game work with tons of people and not turn into a giant cluster**** like kz2/r2

CreepyBacon

Idk, I don't really care about big multiplayer games. I like smaller ones. Even then I'm not a big multiplayer gamer.

Though Resistance 2 was fun for a bit.

Boy you can see it 256 players online running around in 255 differant directions because they can't communicate. I'll take 6 vs 6 in COD HQ with total communication with everyone on my team any day over this...

After playing Battlefield 1943 I realised i've never played a game with this many players on xbox live before. While PSN has Resistance which has 64 players and other games with more players. now M.A.G is going to have 256. If we pay for xbox live why can't it match psn in terms of players?.

LiquidShnake

trust me 60 people on resistance isnt all its cracked up to be

8 on 8 games are much better imo

Boy you can see it 256 players online running around in 255 differant directions because they can't communicate. I'll take 6 vs 6 in COD HQ with total communication with everyone on my team any day over this...

MizFitAwesome

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"][QUOTE="thelastguy"]

Its because there are no dedicated servers, which is sad sense you actually pay for XBL

thelastguy

Which is really sad

[QUOTE="LiquidShnake"]

After playing Battlefield 1943 I realised i've never played a game with this many players on xbox live before. While PSN has Resistance which has 64 players and other games with more players. now M.A.G is going to have 256. If we pay for xbox live why can't it match psn in terms of players?.

johnnyblazed88

trust me 60 people on resistance isnt all its cracked up to be

8 on 8 games are much better imo

[QUOTE="johnnyblazed88"]

[QUOTE="LiquidShnake"]

After playing Battlefield 1943 I realised i've never played a game with this many players on xbox live before. While PSN has Resistance which has 64 players and other games with more players. now M.A.G is going to have 256. If we pay for xbox live why can't it match psn in terms of players?.

EmperorSupreme

trust me 60 people on resistance isnt all its cracked up to be

8 on 8 games are much better imo

[QUOTE="thelastguy"]

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"] its because there are few dedicated servers, which is the same with psn.WilliamRLBaker

Which is really sad

Dedicated servers are have close to no lag

I would rather play a game with minimal lag than being able to play it forever

[QUOTE="MizFitAwesome"]

Boy you can see it 256 players online running around in 255 differant directions because they can't communicate. I'll take 6 vs 6 in COD HQ with total communication with everyone on my team any day over this...

EmperorSupreme

You mean like in Warhawk? What a great experience that was, no one on my team co ordinated or attempted to use teamwork and this game is set for onliine MP....

Boy you can see it 256 players online running around in 255 differant directions because they can't communicate. I'll take 6 vs 6 in COD HQ with total communication with everyone on my team any day over this...

MizFitAwesome

The game supports mic chatting, games usually guide you to each objective as well it's not like you are left to guess.

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"][QUOTE="thelastguy"]

Which is really sad

thelastguy

Dedicated servers are lag free

I would rather play a game lag free than being able to play it for longer

and a ping time of 30-40 is common in most close servers 30-40 is considered good.

P.S: 360 could easily do 256 players with a dedicated server farm.

[QUOTE="EmperorSupreme"][QUOTE="MizFitAwesome"]

Boy you can see it 256 players online running around in 255 differant directions because they can't communicate. I'll take 6 vs 6 in COD HQ with total communication with everyone on my team any day over this...

MizFitAwesome

You mean like in Warhawk? What a great experience that was, no one on my team co ordinated or attempted to use teamwork and this game is set for onliine MP....

[QUOTE="MizFitAwesome"]

[QUOTE="EmperorSupreme"] Why wouldn't they be able to communicate? I'm sure there will be a team and squad system. Tyrant156

You mean like in Warhawk? What a great experience that was, no one on my team co ordinated or attempted to use teamwork and this game is set for onliine MP....

[QUOTE="thelastguy"]

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"] sad based upon? the fact that with psn in a few years times those dedicated servers will shut down making it IMPOSSIBLE to play online games with those games. compared to 360 where developers can make dedicated servers or use client server models ensuring we can play those games forever as long as XBL exists.WilliamRLBaker

Dedicated servers are lag free

I would rather play a game lag free than being able to play it for longer

P.S: 360 could easily do 256 players with a dedicated server farm.

Doesn't change the fact there isn't any

edit:

My argument was never that LIVE can't handle dedicated servers, it was that it is sad that a free service is able to provide them for first party games

[QUOTE="Tyrant156"][QUOTE="MizFitAwesome"]

You mean like in Warhawk? What a great experience that was, no one on my team co ordinated or attempted to use teamwork and this game is set for onliine MP....

WilliamRLBaker

2 words, Dedicated Servers. MS dosent require the Dervs to put up dedicated servers for there games causing lag and the inability to have large amounts of players on a game. Why are you paying for Live again?djsifer01

..because more doen't always mean better? I love small matches, 2v2's and 4v4s.

[QUOTE="MizFitAwesome"]

Boy you can see it 256 players online running around in 255 differant directions because they can't communicate. I'll take 6 vs 6 in COD HQ with total communication with everyone on my team any day over this...

EmperorSupreme

Its because there are no dedicated servers, which is sad sense you actually pay for XBL

thelastguy

[QUOTE="Tyrant156"][QUOTE="MizFitAwesome"]

You mean like in Warhawk? What a great experience that was, no one on my team co ordinated or attempted to use teamwork and this game is set for onliine MP....

WilliamRLBaker

I'm going to call bull on that, you just don't know how to defend yourself.

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"][QUOTE="Tyrant156"] You should join a better team then.Communistsheep

I'm going to call bull on that, you just don't know how to defend yourself.

I love when the sony fanboys bring up the numbers like 256 and 60. You never fight 30v30, and you never fight 128v128. You're split up in groups of 8, just like almost every other shooter, fighting other groups probably with less than 15-20 players. I might as well say Halo 3 and Cod4 feature battles of 1,245 players because lord knows there's at least that many players playing on the same map while not seeing the majority of other players, much like Mag and R2 :lol:DeadMagazines

thats a good point. If you pay $60a year for online play, you should get a massive online FPS. Instead, you watch as Sony fans enjoy Warhawk and MAG.

i think Halo Reach is going to attempt to be a large-scale online FPS

[QUOTE="DeadMagazines"]I love when the sony fanboys bring up the numbers like 256 and 60. You never fight 30v30, and you never fight 128v128. You're split up in groups of 8, just like almost every other shooter, fighting other groups probably with less than 15-20 players. I might as well say Halo 3 and Cod4 feature battles of 1,245 players because lord knows there's at least that many players playing on the same map while not seeing the majority of other players, much like Mag and R2 :lol:Brownesque

thats a good point. If you pay $60a year for online play, you should get a massive online FPS. Instead, you watch as Sony fans enjoy Warhawk and MAG.

i think Halo Reach is going to attempt to be a large-scale online FPS

runekey

2 words, Dedicated Servers. MS dosent require the Dervs to put up dedicated servers for there games causing lag and the inability to have large amounts of players on a game. Why are you paying for Live again?djsifer01

[QUOTE="runekey"]

thats a good point. If you pay $60a year for online play, you should get a massive online FPS. Instead, you watch as Sony fans enjoy Warhawk and MAG.

i think Halo Reach is going to attempt to be a large-scale online FPS

Brownesque

[QUOTE="Brownesque"][QUOTE="runekey"]

thats a good point. If you pay $60a year for online play, you should get a massive online FPS. Instead, you watch as Sony fans enjoy Warhawk and MAG.

i think Halo Reach is going to attempt to be a large-scale online FPS

DeadMagazines

..because more doen't always mean better? I love small matches, 2v2's and 4v4s.