Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Poll [62 votes]: Should HR MP use dedicated servers?
  • Poll [62 votes]: Should HR MP use dedicated servers?
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2
Subject: Should Halo Reach Multiplayer use dedicated servers?

Poll: Should HR MP use dedicated servers?  [closed]
Yes:  61%
(38 Votes)
No:  32%
(20 Votes)
Heck no, it's not cheating to bridge!:  6%
(4 Votes)
Total Votes: 62

What's you views on the much debated topic of peep-peer servers vs dedicated servers?

My view is that dedicated servers could make it harder to cheat and if the network code is done right make those more that few unfair swat and sniping games a little more even.

as far a bridging, i think it's cheating, always has, always will and don't do it even if it means i get my arse handed to me and loose more games than i should.

  • 06.02.2009 6:56 AM PDT

1 word.... YES!

  • 06.02.2009 6:59 AM PDT

When i'm dead & gone, just my skin well remain.

Hell YEAH.....

  • 06.02.2009 7:00 AM PDT

No.

: )

  • 06.02.2009 7:01 AM PDT

@trueunderdog

Chapter

Narwhallace Smithington: Gone, but not forgotten. Never approve of anything lil guy. <3
Furious George: The new -blam!-

I'd rather not pay additional subscription fees.

  • 06.02.2009 7:01 AM PDT

I want her...

would be nice...but I'd say stick with what you know :/

  • 06.02.2009 7:01 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

yeah i definetly think they should, that was the only problem with halo 3 is that it lagged so much because of people's crappy internet and trying to host the game.

  • 06.02.2009 7:02 AM PDT

Posted by: WolfmanMaverick
You people have just sent my sides into orbit. A bunch of MLG try hards sucking the dick of some supposed pro half the thread hasn't even heard of. Classic.

Posted by: True Underdog
I'd rather not pay additional subscription fees.

Agreed.

  • 06.02.2009 7:04 AM PDT

Posted by: Achilles1108
Posted by: True Underdog
I'd rather not pay additional subscription fees.

Agreed.

:facepalm: are you serious, it's not like all the other games charge subscription fees for there dedicated servers. You do pay xbox live subscription for a reason ya know!

  • 06.02.2009 7:07 AM PDT

Hi I'm RT and I like to argue!

Posted by: LT Com Ambrose
Posted by: Achilles1108
Posted by: True Underdog
I'd rather not pay additional subscription fees.

Agreed.

:facepalm: are you serious, it's not like all the other games charge subscription fees for there dedicated servers. You do pay xbox live subscription for a reason ya know!
Yeah...for what we have now. Adding an additional layer of hardware to scale and maintain will result in yet more fees to be paid. New expenses require that you have new revenue sources to pay them with.

  • 06.02.2009 7:08 AM PDT

It's not just about the fees though. Check out this magnificent read.

  • 06.02.2009 7:09 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

No way whosay. (Is that how it goes?)

  • 06.02.2009 7:10 AM PDT

Well apparently the PS3 is doing something right with their dedicated servers without subscription fees.

  • 06.02.2009 7:11 AM PDT

Hi I'm RT and I like to argue!

Posted by: Rob Vokes
No way whosay. (Is that how it goes?)
It's "Jose". It's a Spanish name.

  • 06.02.2009 7:11 AM PDT

Hi I'm RT and I like to argue!

Posted by: johnra8410
Well apparently the PS3 is doing something right with their dedicated servers without subscription fees.
Which is why they're last in console sales, right?

You have an odd definition of "doing something right".

  • 06.02.2009 7:12 AM PDT

It won't eat their profits. If they do it more people will likely subscribe to XBL, which = increased revenue, and I am sure Microsoft knows what is required to run a Dedicated server cheaply and efficiently.
They want money, then they want the best game experiance for us, even if it costs alittle more. For ever 1 person they make 50$ I dont even need to do the math to say thats more then enough. well its just my opinion

  • 06.02.2009 7:18 AM PDT

Posted by: RighteousTyrant
Posted by: johnra8410
Well apparently the PS3 is doing something right with their dedicated servers without subscription fees.
Which is why they're last in console sales, right?

You have an odd definition of "doing something right".

The only reason they have low console sales is because of the price.
But if you look at it in long term you pay the one time price of the console and thats it, where as the Xbox 360 you pay for the console and also $50 a year.

  • 06.02.2009 7:18 AM PDT

Hi I'm RT and I like to argue!

Posted by: LT Com Ambrose
For ever 1 person they make 50$ I dont even need to do the math to say thats more then enough.
Oh really?

How much does such a server cost? The software to handle the games? What about updates to that software? Maintenance? Power costs (for both the server and the air conditioning to keep it cool)? The necessary networking equipment to connect it to the Internet (switches, wiring, etc.)? The bandwidth to make all of that useful? How many players can one server handle?

You actually do have to do the math, or else you're just making terrible assumptions.

  • 06.02.2009 7:25 AM PDT
  • gamertag: Lewtac
  • user homepage:

ohai...

Posted by: Achilles1108
Posted by: True Underdog
I'd rather not pay additional subscription fees.

Agreed.


I twice that.

  • 06.02.2009 7:27 AM PDT

Posted by: RighteousTyrant
Posted by: LT Com Ambrose
Posted by: Achilles1108
Posted by: True Underdog
I'd rather not pay additional subscription fees.

Agreed.

:facepalm: are you serious, it's not like all the other games charge subscription fees for there dedicated servers. You do pay xbox live subscription for a reason ya know!
Yeah...for what we have now. Adding an additional layer of hardware to scale and maintain will result in yet more fees to be paid. New expenses require that you have new revenue sources to pay them with.


All I really need to say is Look at Left for Dead, it has dedicated servers and there are no subscription fees or increased price for the game.

Many people think that when you have dedicated servers they have to run the same as an MMO server runs but that's not the case. MMO games charge service fees because all user data is stored on that server and there is a great deal anticheat protection and prevention beause of the items and game money in the games....

A FPS (if that's what HR will be) dedicated server would have to do little more that accept a connection/party, match it up with other players, tell the consols what map to load, time sync the game and tell the indivual consols draw this here, that bullet was shot here and such. The indivual consols would still do the heavy lifting rendering everything.

Now that you remove an individual 360 host having not only render everything for that player but also sending/recieving data from the other players and bungie servers and just have the xboxes communicate with the dedicated server, you can increase team sizes and reduce lag.

That was a lot of words to basically say dedicated servers does not automatically mean you will have to pay more.

  • 06.02.2009 8:24 AM PDT

@trueunderdog

Chapter

Narwhallace Smithington: Gone, but not forgotten. Never approve of anything lil guy. <3
Furious George: The new -blam!-

Posted by: quano_eater
That was a lot of words to basically say dedicated servers does not automatically mean you will have to pay more.


Alright then, I'll reword my statement: I don't want to have dedicated servers if I have to pay extra fees.

  • 06.02.2009 2:22 PM PDT

"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back! Get mad! I don't want your damn lemons! What am I supposed to do with these? Demand to see life's manager! Make life rue the day it thought it could give EL1TE SUPR3MACY lemons! Do you know who I am? I'm the man who's gonna burn your house down! With the lemons! I'm gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that burns your house down!"

No. I don't want to pay for Xbox LIVE and dedicated servers. Not to mention the addition dedicated servers would not mean the end of lag, cheating, or anything similar. Matchmaking system > dedicated servers.

  • 06.02.2009 2:26 PM PDT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om1yZYyY9lY&hd=1

Battlefield: Bad Company has dedicated servers, 12vs12 with Rank System, instant game-finder, stats online, and ZERO lag in almost every game played, with destructible environments and map 10 times bigger then Halo ones...

...and it's Free. Even download contents are FREE!

We bought Halo CE and Halo 2 on the first Xbox, we bought every single map and map pack, we bought Halo 3 and it's map packs, we'll buy ODST and play the Reach Beta.

WHY Bungie can not use dedicated servers for the next Halo Multiplayer Experience, WHY? And WHY, after all that, we have to pay something to have them in case they'll use them?

Dedicated servers can solve:

-Lag
-Slow searches
-Cheating

In one, single, way...

...and we DESERVE them, after all we've done for Halo...
Period.

[Edited on 06.02.2009 3:42 PM PDT]

  • 06.02.2009 3:38 PM PDT

KEEP IT CLEAN

Bungie is usually pretty cheap. At least that's how the come off for me.

Their success has built off the matchmaking system and hosts. Why change that?
Posted by: P40L0 360
...and we DESERVE them, after all we've done for Halo...
Period.


What have we done for Halo other than buy the games? Think about what BUNGIE has done for Halo...

  • 06.02.2009 3:52 PM PDT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om1yZYyY9lY&hd=1

They've re-used an old-gen engine from the past game only revamped with more features and let us pay 100$ for a Collector's Edition, with an announcement trailer far more different (in better) then the final product...

I love Halo, I'm the biggest italian fan of Halo, but after all those years of love from fans like us, we AT LEAST deserve a decent infrastructure-server-based for the online play, it's not 2004 and Halo 2, no more...

I repeat: Battlefield Bad Company -> First "serious" game by DICE on Console, a lot smaller fan base respect Halo but: Dedicated servers, Free download content, (technically) far more complex and next-gen game...

And you think it's right to still have Host-to-Client netcode or an Halo 2.5 HD sequel on a console like 360, in 2010?

I hope that Halo: Reach will set new standards in everything like Halo CE in 2001 did, god bless it...

  • 06.02.2009 5:02 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2