PSN does 256, Xbox Live does 24?.

[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...

Communistsheep

Yeah that does suck when you're playing with very few players.

Although XBL is capable of having more than 30 players online.

[QUOTE="Brownesque"] Buhbuhbuh it would only be irony if I complained about both of them. Oops. Saw it coming. Score. ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED! IRONY - 500 GAMERPOINTS! Hey, guess what: when you're playing a game that supports a large number of players, you don't have to play on full servers. You can....here's an idea.....CHOOSE what server you want to join and even FILTER them on the amount of players that occupy each server. Does your matchmaking accomplish that? No, it throws you into a random game with a random number of random people.II-FBIsniper-II

Yes you can choose the amount of people you want to play with in matchmaking.

[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

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

thelastguy

[QUOTE="thelastguy"]

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

Michael324

Care to explain why?

edit: can't tell if you are saying the my point is weak, or the fact that there is no dedicated servers is weak

Yeah that does suck when you're playing with very few players.

Although XBL is capable of having more than 30 players online.

SpinoRaptor24

XBL has little to do with the game design of the game.. Furthermore multiplayer size does not dictate quality.sSubZerOo

Because more automatically means better, right? Halo 3's popularity is really hurting because it doesn't support 256 players. No wonder no one's playing it. :roll: And that's precisely why Resistance 2 is totally tearing up the charts.

How 'bout that Left4Dead game. It has dedicated servers, but no large player count. What does that mean?

It means that fanboys put too much importance on a bullet points. A good game is a good game regardless of player count. Come on.... you have to latch onto something else. Your best examples are either not yet released or not pulling in the numbers to come close to a 16 player game like Halo 3.

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

it is very odd, i like PS3 multiplayer alot more then i do XBL just cause its never just 2 guys who are killing everyone...its 12 people on a team working towards the same goal. XBL is good for just sensless free for all fast paced PS3 is for more teamwork based

it is very odd, i like PS3 multiplayer alot more then i do XBL just cause its never just 2 guys who are killing everyone...its 12 people on a team working towards the same goal. XBL is good for just sensless free for all fast paced PS3 is for more teamwork based

eo_the_shaman

it is very odd, i like PS3 multiplayer alot more then i do XBL just cause its never just 2 guys who are killing everyone...its 12 people on a team working towards the same goal. XBL is good for just sensless free for all fast paced PS3 is for more teamwork based

eo_the_shaman

more != better.

24 players with BF1943 seems to work perfectly, same with BF BC. Large PC FPSs only work when you have decently coordinated teams, otherwise they are to chaotic.

BF2 and BF2142 with 64 players is awesome when you actually have some squads working together, otherwise its boring as the whole map turns into 1 v 1 sniper shootouts or air camping.

The best matches usually have been 16-24. If the maps are made just right, that is the perfect amount.

16 players is already a cluster****. Why would I want any more?NBSRDan

How 'bout that Left4Dead game. It has dedicated servers, but no large player count. What does that mean? It means that fanboys put too much importance on a bullet points. VoodooHak

[QUOTE="VoodooHak"]How 'bout that Left4Dead game. It has dedicated servers, but no large player count. What does that mean? It means that fanboys put too much importance on a bullet points. Brownesque

You're so mentally blocked by this obsession you have with dedicated servers, you missed the point. The 4 player co-op experience, even the pvp version of the game can arguably offer up a more entertaining experience than games that support much more players per session.

It's less a matter of capability and more a matter of design.

[QUOTE="NBSRDan"]16 players is already a cluster****. Why would I want any more?Brownesque

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"][QUOTE="EmperorSupreme"] That's a myth and a false one that lemmings believe. Games have already been shut down on LiveBrownesque

Your mental block is showing again.

What do your comments have to do with original Xbox p2p games still running? WilliamRLBaker says it's so. EmperorSupreme says that's a myth. Your prattling on hasn't contributed to their argument.

[QUOTE="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?WilliamRLBaker

Quanitity doesn ot equal quality. I was really excited about R2 when i bought it, but 60 players is really nothing special.

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"][QUOTE="Tyrant156"] You should join a better team then.Bazooka_4ME

lol dude, stop talkin' outta your ass; there have been many clans that have proven themselves aces in Warhawk based on tournament results held week after week when the game launched. And YES, our clan used to be one of the top clans in Warhawk back in late 2007 to early 2008.

To be perfectly honest, most of the time we don't even use mics on our games because once you get the idea on how the game is set and played, then there's no really need of me or any of my other teams to yell on another to "GET THE FLAG! GET THE FLAG! STUPID DUMB ****!!!"

Well...my Frontlines does 50

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]

[QUOTE="thelastguy"]

Dedicated servers are lag free

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

thelastguy

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

Why would they need to? Developers decide how many players they want their games to have. They decide. If they want a ton of players, the publisher will need to decide if they are willing to pay for servers to host a ton of players. But the developers aren't choosing that... So, there is no point in having expensive dedicated servers...

Zipper decided they wanted a 256 player MP game... So, Sony is paying for the servers...And if MAG bombs in sales, don't expect them to maintain those servers for long. Hosting 256 player games means big servers. Big servers mean big costs. If MAG doesn't sell, expect them to either shut the servers down or arrange some sort of subscription service to continue playing. Because those servers won't maintain themselves.

So more players equals a better online experience lol.aero250

[QUOTE="aero250"]So more players equals a better online experience lol.xxThyLordxx

The unerlying premise of the orginal claim about paying is that if you pay, the service should provice more players per session....which is an idiotic premise.

[QUOTE="aero250"]So more players equals a better online experience lol.xxThyLordxx

It can. All it takes is a developer that wants to make such a game. However, nobody does. Why? Because massive multiplayer games are prone to devolving into chaos.

If Bungie wanted to make a game with 512 players, made the tech to support such a massive game, and designed it to play well with that many players, MS would sit down and decide if they wanted to front the money for the necessary dedicated servers... Whether they actually would, that is an entirely different question... Servers aren't cheap. You need a ton of sales to break even on your servers, and to be quite honest, you need a steady stream of income to maintain those servers. Sure, you can ride off the profits you made on the game, but then the longer you run the game, the less money you make.

So, would MS choose to do it? Who knows...

lemmings logic: you get what you pay for, but it does not apply here. xxThyLordxx

[QUOTE="VoodooHak"]

[QUOTE="xxThyLordxx"] typical lemming response. the topic is not about gameplay/experience/whatever, its about paying for an online service, yet cant provide such service.xxThyLordxx

The unerlying premise of the orginal claim about paying is that if you pay, the service should provice more players per session....which is an idiotic premise.

XBL isn't limiting anything.

Developers can have Dedicated Servers so long as they pay for and maintain those servers....

Servers aren't cheap though. Sony is taking what could quite honestly be called one of the biggest risks in the history of online gaming by making this game for the PS3. It means they have to support EVERY server for EVERY player... The community can't pick up the slack like on PC games, Sony has to do it all.

Without a subscription fee, they are relying entirely on the profits that the game makes. To cover the costs of development, a large number of copies need to be sold(1 million). But 1 million means a ton of servers. That increase the costs, and makes even more necessary copies, and this keep piling up until you reach a point where it becomes financially viable and profitable.

The risks involved are insane... Sony may end up losing a ton of money on the game.

As for DC Universe Online, expect that to have a subscription fee.

Quality + Design >>> Quantity

Most games that tout their player counts usually aren't designed for that many players. Most multiplayer situations call for a specific number of players that makes playing the game "fun." More people on a map designed for less is not fun.