EA won't support Microsofts online plans?

[JefmcC]

Originally posted by Johnpv


no not really

different online games require different kinds of servers
1 server doesnt fit all

the set up square would/will need/has for FFXI is different from say what some one would need to set up a sims (you knwo those crazy sim games they have on the PC and now soon PS2) online

if a company can tailor the server to their game specifically youll get online games that run better and more efficiently online

getting good online speeds and transfers of the net for anything is all about tweaking and tailoring servers and programs to what theyre specifically doing

what gives you optimal lag-free performance for a MMORPG may not give you the best performance for say a racing game online

companies should be allowed to custom design the servers and the set ups for their games eveyrone wants lag free play then let the companies do what they have to

OK, makes sense to me.

But I still think having MS control the servers is a good idea.

[Tracer]

Originally posted by Johnpv


no not really

different online games require different kinds of servers
1 server doesnt fit all

the set up square would/will need/has for FFXI is different from say what some one would need to set up a sims (you knwo those crazy sim games they have on the PC and now soon PS2) online

if a company can tailor the server to their game specifically youll get online games that run better and more efficiently online

getting good online speeds and transfers of the net for anything is all about tweaking and tailoring servers and programs to what theyre specifically doing

what gives you optimal lag-free performance for a MMORPG may not give you the best performance for say a racing game online

companies should be allowed to custom design the servers and the set ups for their games eveyrone wants lag free play then let the companies do what they have to

No one said this was going to be one massive server for every game located in Norad or something. There's nothing to indicate that there won't be multiple servers for multiple diffrent games... they'll just be under one large umbrella.

Needless, IF there are fees for PS2's online games, there is the chance that you'll end up paying more with mutiple bills. Furthermore -with the plans that XBL has, real-time game switching for instance - haveing the servers under one umbrella is nessisary. There's a lot of promise with XBL that not only deliver online gaming, but have features beyond anything that I currently can expect from PS2... not to mention there will be dial-up users bogging down the games. Since I'm unfortunately not on MS's payroll, or that of any other publisher, I'm looking out for myself. I have BB, I naturally like the XBL route much better.

To EA: Best of luck. Not that they need it. I'm sure they'll make it work to a degree. I don't have faith in them per se, but I juts have a pretty good feeling that whatever they do with the Madden NFL series, it'll be considered triumphant by the masses and the media alike.

ºTracer

[sphere79]

I remember reading that Square also didn't want to use MS's servers, and they were going to allow Square to use it's own servers after the game would authenticate with MS. Square didn't like this either. I think basically they want to keep all Xbox games as "stable" as possible by making them playable against other Xbox's only, it would also reduce the ability to cheat and / or hack, imo. Also, I would imagine that even if you pay, say $10 a month to MS - there must be a way that MS can give some of that to a 3rd party. Maybe broken down by how much an individual game is played. I.E. the more popular the game, the more a 3rd party would get. F**k EA, they suck anyway. You've got three shitty companies all in bed together - Sony, EA, and AOL - a match made in heaven. I'd be suprised if Sega doesn't have big plans for Xbox Live myself........

[JefmcC]

Originally posted by sphere79
I'd be suprised if Sega doesn't have big plans for Xbox Live myself........

One can only hope.

[TheSCHLONG!]

isnt Square charging their own fee for FF11 in addition to whatever SONY may have for other games plus what you pay for your ISP? i know this is nothing different than what PC gamers do with games like EQ, DAoC and the such but they're a whole different breed and are generally more tech savvy and have more money to throw around. really...if they want the lemmings to adopt online they should really just have one bill. granted the percent of people wholl pay/play online is small....the easier/cheaper it is the more lemmings will play.

[MechDeus]

Originally posted by Johnpv
different online games require different kinds of servers
1 server doesnt fit all

Yes it does, you just need different programs.

if a company can tailor the server to their game specifically youll get online games that run better and more efficiently online

getting good online speeds and transfers of the net for anything is all about tweaking and tailoring servers and programs to what theyre specifically doing

what gives you optimal lag-free performance for a MMORPG may not give you the best performance for say a racing game online

Wrong, what creates lag from a server is the upload speed from the server connection and how many different nodes the signal must pass through before reaching your home, coupled with the amount of information that must be sent. So far most games don't need to send too much info, so what's good for one is good for all. However, MMORPGs can deal with lag better then, say, FPS', because they aren't twitch based, while the amount of lag deals more with the connection.

Now, you will need multiple servers for each game, but you can connect these and have them all under one roof to create what MS' "single server" would most likely be.

To the topic at hand, I couldn't care less, as I don't play EA games to begin with, and I'm certainly not to going pay even more each month for their products.

[gamevet]

You could also look at it this way. PS2 will have Dial-up and Broadband supported games. EA might want to make games like Madden with both Broadband and Dial-up support. Devide the Broadband players, from the Dial-up players, and free up the lag time. Sure it would require seperate servers, but Sega had a multitude of servers running for their games. Broadband won't really be a majoy player in most homes, as a majority still use Dial-up service. Many articles have pointed out that Broadband won't see it's true potential til around 2004, as cost and availability wil limit it's user base.

[dog$]

Further proof that anything dealing with "online gaming" is complete bullshit that isn't worth anyone's time.

[Shin Johnpv]

so i guess if one server fits all you could run a quake III server off a PIII 500 with 256 megs of ram right

i mean its fine for sims servers

[MechDeus]

so i guess if one server fits all you could run a quake III server off a PIII 500 with 256 megs of ram right

i mean its fine for sims servers

Well, seeing as there currently is no such thing as a Sims server available to the public, that's an interesting point to attempt.

In any case, yes, that would be perfectly fine for a Q3 server as long as the upload/download speeds on it were great, and it was placed to be quickly accessible to the people accessing it (as in, it doesn't have to hop from port to port to port to port to port to get to your house). The servers run the games, but don't have to do an exceptional job at actually playing the game (you can turn down the options insanely low on Q3 to have it run on that system).