- Xx Mr Bill xX
- |
- Fabled Mythic Member
Clearly because the desktop uses a 3 prong plug and a laptop uses a 2 prong plug, the microwave will fill your car with tostitos better
Posted by: keeno 111
Posted by: Xx Mr Bill xX
People need to educate themselves on the nature of servers. They really don't solve any problems.
1. A server is massively expensive. Let alone having multiple servers (to counteract that having one won't solve half of the problems P2P hosting has) would be ridiculous to support. Who is going to pay for this? Why would they throw money at servers when they don't solve many of the problems P2P hosting has that people -blam!- and moan about?
2. When servers crash, everybody goes offline. No one is playing or will be able to play until they get the servers back up. If one person lags out in Halo, even if they are hosting a game, only one person lags out and the game still goes on. Not to mention, that one person can usually get right back online. Many times if a server crashes people aren't going to be able to get back online for hours or perhaps days depending on the problem.
3. Server maintenance. I'm sure everyone will be oh so happy that we are playing on servers when they shut them down regularly to perform maintenance so crashes (that will happen anyways) won't happen.
4. Hosting games on a dedicated server doesn't even fix a lot of the problems people have with the current system. People who live far away from where the server is located are going to still be at a disadvantage compared to people who are closer to the server than them. The funny thing is, people who are closest to the host of games already receive that kind of advantage over people. Information still takes time to travel, the only thing servers really eliminate is one person getting a host advantage.
5. As time goes on, less and less people will play the game. It happens with every game. Why would they keep massively expensive servers up as the population goes down? What are they going to do, shut down a server to save money and then completely -blam!- over people who live far away from any other server.
You are by far wrong. Have you played battlefield 1943? Aussie servers are great? and your also contradicting yourself by saying they cost to much? isn't that why we pay for xbox live, for decent service?
No reason why every microsoft game with online campability shouldn't have servers. microsoft are just money hungry.
And what business do you run now? Good, keep it that way, it'd be sad to see yet another person filing for bankruptcy because they don't do the financially smart thing. If you dislike the service that MS is currently providing then don't pay for it, I'm happy with what I pay for. I hear the PSN is free, you might wanna look that up.
First off, Microsoft is not first and foremost a gaming company. Its become a large part of their entity, no doubt, but the majority of their income probably does not come from gaming.. Its not their responsibility to provide servers for their devs, they already have a working medium to play games on, why change it? Secondly, even if they do have a lot of money, its -blam!- stupid for them to spend money on server for any game that isn't absolutely massive. Halo and CoD are big, but providing multiple servers for them is unneeded cost when the current system works fine.
Do you know how rich EA is that they can provide one server for one game of theirs? You know whats funny, BF1943 reached server capacity over the summer, which means one person can't play until another person stops playing. Have fun waiting to play Halo because there are too many people on. I'm sure the aussie servers work so great, it doesn't change the fact that the people closer to the server still have an advantage over people who live farther away from the server. That's no different than the current system aside from one person doesn't have host advantage.
I like how you didn't even try to say anything about my other points aside from you opinionated claim that MS doesn't provide servers because they are greedy.