Now LIVE on the PC is free..

By popisdead uk
in Xbox

 Share

Recommended Posts

Veteran

popisdead uk

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Yea, it does... but unless your the host you shouldn't notice that too much.

Not too dear - always offers around... newegg is selling them for ?25 at the moment

I can afford 5 live subscriptions a day with msummerb> job.

It's not about if you can afford them, it's about that fact the service should be free. I can afford to buy the subscription, I've never said that's the problem.

So, Mr Network Engineer, how is using P2P or not associated with the cost of running the service. Please don't tell me it's the bandwidth cost.

Seeing as this is my day job, Mr Network Engineer suits me just fine. I won't bother boring you with the specifics but P2P networking is the cheapest way to network, MS should not be charging us for using it.

Guest

Posted
Posted
So sick of people complaining about the PS3. Works both ways.

It's ?40, that isn't cheap, and costs more than 'barely nothing'. The service is far from faultless, and uses cheap (free everywhere else that uses it) P2P networking.

XBL should be free.

Such a hypocrite... Always trying to stir up trouble.

Cant bring up any of the 360's advantages in the Sony section though... GAWD

Microsoft are willing to pump millions into their network... and it shows.

Grand Master

Brony

Posted
Posted

The problem with XBL in PC is not related with the cost but the act himself.

For XBL there are three kind of people:.

a ) people that owns a xbox360 so they don't care about xbl for pc.

b ) people that don't want to spend money on a xbox360, so they also (usually) don't want to spend money in a subscription.

c ) a rare case where a person want to play a xbl game but don't want to spend on a xbox360 and he's willing to pay for a subscription.

Veteran

popisdead uk

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Such a hypocrite... Always trying to stir up trouble.

Cant bring up any of the 360's advantages in the Sony section though... GAWD

Microsoft are willing to pump millions into their network... and it shows.

As I own both consoles, and pay to use them I feel I have every right to voice my opinion. I'm not knocking the 360 in the slightest here, and if you read my posts you would see that.

Veteran

hjf288

Posted
Posted
Yea, it does... but unless your the host you shouldn't notice that too much.

Not too dear - always offers around... newegg is selling them for ?25 at the moment

I can afford 5 live subscriptions a day with msummerb> job.

So wait? When you download something from Xbox Live its distributed using P2P, I thought they were using something similar to Akamais Content Delivery Network (Maybe even Akamais CDN)??

I knew the fact that playing games was Player hosting/connecting (P2P)

Guest

Posted
Posted
As I own both consoles, and pay to use them I feel I have every right to voice my opinion. I'm not knocking the 360 in the slightest here, and if you read my posts you would see that.

You may own both but its obvious which one you favour... It stands out in every post you make.

So wait? When you download something from Xbox Live its distributed using P2P, I thought they were using something similar to Akamais Content Delivery Network (Maybe even Akamais CDN)??

I knew the fact that playing games was Player hosting/connecting (P2P)

No, Dedicated servers for online content. Thats why we get very good speed.

As Sethos already pointed out above its not really a P2P service but rather a client - server one where one of the players acts as the server.

Grand Master

Sethos

Posted
Posted
So wait? When you download something from Xbox Live its distributed using P2P, I thought they were using something similar to Akamais Content Delivery Network (Maybe even Akamais CDN)??

I knew the fact that playing games was Player hosting/connecting (P2P)

God no, downloads are served by Microsoft - It's hosting servers they are referring to as "P2P" even though it's Client-server.

Guest

Posted
Posted
That was my point!

Downloads from them arent P2P and thus do cost them..

Yea, it costs them... but people want to ignore that fact and just get the online games for free.

They also have a service like www.cachefly.com which creates copies globally which increases speed + reliability

Veteran

hjf288

Posted
Posted
Yea, it costs them... but people want to ignore that fact and just get the online games for free.

They also have a service like www.cachefly.com which creates copies globally which increases speed + reliability

I like being able to rent movies for cheaper than at the rental store... But it doesnt come free for Microsoft, they have to license/host that movie - The yearly fee is not bad and the fact that games/movies are cheap on the marketplace means you cant really complain.

Grand Master

Sethos

Posted
Posted

Read an article some time ago, touching the point of the video store where they suggested Microsoft would implement P2P, they could save cost of hosting and even offer cheaper movies - Now that would be a welcome addition of P2P (Y)

But just to add some negativity, roll out video rental in Europe now god dammit :angry:

Grand Master

George P Global Moderator

Posted
  • Global Moderator
Posted

There are different systems working on live, all the content is hosted on MS servers so it's NOT P2P. Multiplayer games (except for MMOs) pick one player as the host (server) and everyone else as the guest (client). This is also not p2p. I'm sure p2p protocols are used somewhere but not "everywhere" It's not like the demos or other stuff I've downloaded from XBL is then being shared to whoever else wants to download it as well. In this sense it's not a true P2P network at all. And this is also a simple fact.

Grand Master

Reacon

Posted
Posted

Hey, guys! Unless you are all too hard-headed to notice, P2P or not, the Microsoft LIVE network has suffered MUCH less problems than Wii and PSN. Microsoft is not stupid, they came out with the most effective (and cost effective) way for online gaming with the release of thier FIRST console, while Sony and Nintendo still cannot seem to find a better way to improve the lag besides upgrading bandwidth, and thus costing them more money. Let's face it, Microsoft had the wits to outsmart Sony and Nintendo, they suffer no financial losses from providing thier service, instead they MAKE money off of it.

Don't tell me this is abusing, most people don't mind being the connection host. Infact, back in the Halo 2 days, people ould try to become the connection host because of the advantages it brings. And even then, most people that get connection host have fiber optic or cable and have much much more bandwidth than they need. So it's not hurting the public at all, it's making online gaming better.

The point is, Microsoft made a service that conquers most (if not all) lag problems. PSN and Wii were not able to do this and therefore they fall behind, it's not Microsoft's fault, it's thiers for not being able to adapt to a better, more effective method of online play. Face it, Mcrosoft is god ;)

Yes, I am a Microsoft fanboy, but at least I provide backup.

Veteran

popisdead uk

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The PSN has very little lag, and has had very few problems. I'm not sure where you are getting your information from, but it appears to be wrong.

Yes, XBL is the more established service with the better options (although 2.41 on the PSN has closed the gap) but the PSN has none of the problems you mention.

Grand Master

DrunknMunky Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
Hey, guys! Unless you are all too hard-headed to notice, P2P or not, the Microsoft LIVE network has suffered MUCH less problems than Wii and PSN. Microsoft is not stupid, they came out with the most effective (and cost effective) way for online gaming with the release of thier FIRST console, while Sony and Nintendo still cannot seem to find a better way to improve the lag besides upgrading bandwidth, and thus costing them more money. Let's face it, Microsoft had the wits to outsmart Sony and Nintendo, they suffer no financial losses from providing thier service, instead they MAKE money off of it.

Don't tell me this is abusing, most people don't mind being the connection host. Infact, back in the Halo 2 days, people ould try to become the connection host because of the advantages it brings. And even then, most people that get connection host have fiber optic or cable and have much much more bandwidth than they need. So it's not hurting the public at all, it's making online gaming better.

The point is, Microsoft made a service that conquers most (if not all) lag problems. PSN and Wii were not able to do this and therefore they fall behind, it's not Microsoft's fault, it's thiers for not being able to adapt to a better, more effective method of online play. Face it, Mcrosoft is god ;)

Yes, I am a Microsoft fanboy, but at least I provide backup.

I like this guy :laugh:

@ pop, Sony may have closed the gap with 2.41, but MS just made an even bigger gap with the announcements at E3 :yes: Back to where we were then :p

Veteran

popisdead uk

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The announcements are not live yet, so I will wait for them to be released before passing judgement.

I do like the look of the new dashboard, and some of the features seem nice but I'm not sure it really pushes the service that much further, certainly doesn't give it the gap it had pre 2.41

Grand Master

DrunknMunky Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

Well that's the difference in our opinions. There is no denying though it has created a huge gap again. All the features in 2.41 should have been there from the beginning and none of them were that great to begin with. This is what I said all along that MS will be hard at work in the background and not standing still while Sony play catch up. It's gonna be a common story this generation.

Veteran

popisdead uk

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Well that's the difference in our opinions. There is no denying though it has created a huge gap again. All the features in 2.41 should have been there from the beginning and none of them were that great to begin with. This is what I said all along that MS will be hard at work in the background and not standing still while Sony play catch up. It's gonna be a common story this generation.

I agree, with MS being first onto the shelf other consoles will play catch up. Not a bad thing though really. All works to our advantage in the end (Y)

Grand Master

PiracyX

Posted
Posted
Well that's the difference in our opinions. There is no denying though it has created a huge gap again. All the features in 2.41 should have been there from the beginning and none of them were that great to begin with. This is what I said all along that MS will be hard at work in the background and not standing still while Sony play catch up. It's gonna be a common story this generation.

Like i said before. v2.41 = v1.0

Next time Sony should get the services together before they release their console.

Grand Master

Scirwode

Posted
Posted
Like i said before. v2.41 = v1.0

Next time Sony should get the services together before they release their console.

Lets not be too hard on Sony, at least they release it. Better late than never, as the saying goes?

Scirwode

Grand Master

.KICK

Posted
Posted
The PSN has very little lag, and has had very few problems.

:blink:

Anyhow, you bought this argument yourself with the whole PS3 thing! This is about Xbox Live for starters! Moving on.

As many people have said, Xbox Live won't be free, it may get cheaper in future but who knows. Microsoft don't charge much as it currently is. End of the day, people should not subscribe if they feel it is not worthy of their money! GFW is no where near on the same scale as Xbox Live either. More games and content means more power required to make sure that the service is efficient for users.

In my opinion, I feel that the fee for Xbox Live is justified and worth it.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.