I don't want to step into the middle of this ( he says as he steps in the middle ), and trust me - I like Xbox Live - but none of the games I've played have had dedicated servers. I know they do host a few for some of the games, and some ( like PGR2 ) are set up in a way that requires a host to make settings changes, etc. We've argued with Master about this before ( who works for MS ), and he pretty much said it's not up to Microsoft to host servers. This is my only beef with Live, games like Wolfenstein need servers - and I'm paying a monthly fee ( yea, yea, Live stats and data management bla bla bla ) and they ARE MICROSOFT for chrissakes, they could get up off their wallet and put up some servers.Originally Posted by Sl1p
Yes people should bitch to MS, the problem is most people don't realize the games they are playing are peer-hosted, so they don't know to complain. There's nothing wrong with having peer-hosting either, I think it's good to have that option but for some games ( i.e. FPS's ) that could use dedicated servers there should be more of them.


Reply With Quote

And I readily admit that getting EA's support is a MASSIVE step forward for the service. However, there are still plenty of other things about Live that MS needs to improve. And if you read sphere's post, you would see that I am not alone in thinking that.


Bookmarks