My Xbox Live rant.

I'm getting a little tired of the Xbox Lives performance lately. Hardly any games EVER support the full amount of players they say they can. Games like Ghost Recon and Unreal rarely have full games due to lag and 90% of the players inability to host mass amounts of people. Hell, Clone Wars is 8 players and that runs like fucking dial up. I'm beginning to wonder why we pay money at all when we do all the hosting. SOCOM is FREE and it has TONS of 16 player games. I guess for $50 a year I can take it but anymore and Mircosoft can EAT ME!

It is fun though. Capcom vs SNK2 and PSO are good I guess. All the games do have fun to be had but not with the large multiplayer games I have hoped for. Even Moto GP has 16 players! I guess I understand that its not really bandwidth taxing but stil..

I'm just pissed lately that when I crave a 10-16 player game its just impossible to find or even attempt to host. Damn you Sony and your working 16 player SOCOM. Too bad thats a fucking mess with all the cheaters and bugs. ARGH!

Hopefully Wolfenstein will work better when it arrives next week. I hope for at LEAST 8 player games to work well. Team based games with 2 on 2 just arent as cool.

I haven't played Ghost Recon online yet, but offline it's already a prety herky-jerky affair. I know some people who swear by it, but I can't say I see the appeal.

CvS2 isn't perfect - I lose an awful lot of cancels into the aether. But later at night it's great, especially if you're playing someone nearby.

PSO is almost flawless - no slowdown or anything, just the occasional player warping around the screen or seemingly fighting nothing. But that doesn't have any bearing on your game. I have yet to be dropped or fsoded or anything else like that.

NFL and NBA 2K3 have some lag to them, which sucks, but it's not killer or anything.

Unreal is a mess with alot of players, but I haven't played a great deal so maybe I've just tried it at bad times.

Moto GP is flawless as near as I can tell. I've only played the demo, but never had any problems.

I played the Whacked demo once, thought it was completely stupid and never tried it again. But while I was on, it ran just fine.

Mech Assault I've only played offline, and I haven't played any of the other Live offerings. But all in all, I consider Live money well spent, as long as players are monitored and standards/game integrity (ie., no haXXX0rz) maintained.

Plus, the friends thing is really cool. I just wish certain games (*coughPSOcoughcough*) did a better job of that feature...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by EvilMog007
I'm beginning to wonder why we pay money at all when we do all the hosting.

---

you feel for MS MASTER PLAN!!!!!1111111111111

its almost as good as Jeremys master plan but MS's makes money

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Shin Johnpv
its almost as good as Jeremys master plan but MS's makes money

---

Yeah, Atari tried Jeremy's with the Jaguar, but it didn't really work out for them.

I've played a few hundred MechAssault matches and the majority played well. During peak hours it can get a little laggy but I've managed to play lag-free 8 player games during that time. People usually get dropped from a game between the player setup and the start of the game but it's not that bad. I got LIVE as a gift but I think itw as well worth it.

Xbox Live if a joke without dedicated gaming servers, and MS took them down for good. Now it's all peer-to-peer, and peer-to-peer really sucks for games with more than 4 - 6 people, which makes games like Unreal and Wolfenstein sort of pointless.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Mfkzt
Xbox Live if a joke without dedicated gaming servers, and MS took them down for good. Now it's all peer-to-peer, and peer-to-peer really sucks for games with more than 4 - 6 people, which makes games like Unreal and Wolfenstein sort of pointless.

---

How the hell did I miss this happening? So you suckers are paying for a service (and sometimes fees on top of that) for something that isn't anything more than a matching service? Nice.

Yup. Before the Beta test started last year, grumblings were going on about XBL being primarily a P2P service. A lot of doomsayers moaned about it being the downfall of the service. Then things went hush-hush about it for some reason.

Now that I think about it, I gotta wonder if that's one of the reasons MS went broadband only for the Xbox. If you force the customer to host the games rather than via your servers, the hosts are going to need a fat pipe to support enough people to make it fun. That, and you need a fat pipe for the voice communication.

When it works, XBL is absolutely awesome. When it doesn't, well, it sucks compared to, say, SegaNet on a 56K line.

i still cant believe they make people pay for a P2P service

Quote:

---

Originally posted by EvilMog007
Ghost Recon... Unreal... Wolfenstein

I'm beginning to wonder why we pay money at all when we do all the hosting.

All the games do have fun to be had but not with the large multiplayer games I have hoped for.

I'm just pissed lately that when I crave a 10-16 player game its just impossible to find or even attempt to host.

I hope for at LEAST 8 player games to work well. Team based games with 2 on 2 just arent as cool.

---

There's this thing that does games called a PC. You're using it to browse TNL. You should really check it out, considering all of the things you don't like about Xbox Live are good (and free) on the PC.