Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: Does Bungie truly listen to feedback?
  • Subject: Does Bungie truly listen to feedback?
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2
Subject: Does Bungie truly listen to feedback?

Wherever you roam
so far from home
you'll be safe from peril
life threatening and terrible
if you avoid David Powel
and keep track of your towel.

Posted by: GiIIaHouse
I think they have the funds to have dedicated servers. If other smaller game companies can do it, I'm sure Bungie can as well.

I'm still hoping they go this route with Reach. If not I will be extremely disappointed.


First of all, having dedicated servers is up to Microsoft. Bungie uses Xbox LIVE which is a peer-to-peer online gaming network. Bungie couldn't use dedicated servers for Reach even if they wanted to.

Secondly, it's not like dedicated servers magically eliminate lag (or your fictional cheating). At best dedicated servers lessen "host advantage" which is hardly a problem in Halo 3 anyway.

  • 10.30.2009 6:18 PM PDT

Posted by: GiIIaHouse
On topic, I'll admit I don't know all that much about the details of maintaining dedicated servers, but in my opinion it would fix a lot of things that are wrong with MM right now.

That's not to say that new problems won't arise, but I'd like to see a different approach this time around.

I'm pretty certain they're just tweaking the current system rather than implementing dedicated servers, but I'd like to hear about the pros and cons of dedicated servers vs P2P.


ok, so you don't know much about servers, but you know for a fact that they will solve the problems with matchmaking?

with servers there is still a "host" like advantage for those that are closest to the source. with servers you could potentially have a whole team that has a host like advantage, whereas peer 2 peer only has 1 at any time.

also with servers you could potentially not have enough space causing many people to wait for an open space.

also if a server goes out/crashes everyone in the region can't play.

also... once a games population dies down servers will be taken offline. eventually all of them must be closed down, then that last remnant of dedicated gamers can no longer play (people still play halo 2).

so both have their problems, it's not like servers are superior, it's all a matter of developer choice, bungie already has a pretty good system, developing servers would just detract from time spent on the game itself.

  • 10.30.2009 7:18 PM PDT

Posted by: GiIIaHouse
I think they have the funds to have dedicated servers. If other smaller game companies can do it, I'm sure Bungie can as well.

I'm still hoping they go this route with Reach. If not I will be extremely disappointed.


to be quite honest I 40% agree with you 60% disagree, while bungie probably does "have" enough money to get dedicated servers and there would be pros and cons, if they spent that much money they would be near bankrupt... yes smaller companies can do it.... smaller companies don't have like 2 million matches in a day.... my statistics may not be accurate and I havent done a lot of server networking but bungie would probably need more dedicated servers than World of Warcraft to keep up with the halo community.... especially if they want to continue halo 3, halo 3:odst + halo: reach support that gets expensive... World of Warcraft charges every month.... bungie doesnt so I don't think they could afford that... because not only would the cost of buying them be massive... but there is the monthly bandwidth usage be enormous... there is also the issue that if something goes wrong then they have to check the building full of servers and go through them to find whats wrong... as much as I would like dedicated servers I cant see it being practical. hopefully that sort of puts things in perspective.... unless everyone wants to pay an extra monthly fee on top of microsofts xbox live gold fee for private servers "20 bucks a month to play halo online!" lol not.... now if microsoft had dedicated servers set up thats another story.... microsoft has probably 80000000 dollars coming in every month from xbox live.... well I would assume that xbox live community is around 10 mill now.... not to mention everything else microsoft is making money off of

  • 10.30.2009 7:43 PM PDT

Posted by: Baph117
This is an incredible step forward to being able to cure Downss sybndonre mn humans bineg.s

No. First party only dedicated servers often ruin an online game experience. Even if it were to integrate X-servers (Which would be the only even remotely acceptable iteration of such an occurence), that would drastically change the way the game is set up, and Halo is not a PC game.

  • 10.30.2009 7:48 PM PDT

--PC Games--
Halo: Combat Evolved
--Xbox 360 Games--
Halo 2
Halo 3
Halo Wars

Halo 3's system is fine, quit -blam!-in'

  • 10.30.2009 8:13 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: GiIIaHouse
If so, they will get dedicated servers for Reach. I won't even mention all the downfalls of not having them, everyone should know that by now.

They seem to make enough $$$ to host games. Seriously... you guys have done everything else right, time to fix this, no?


They'd have to have servers all over the world to host games, otherwise it would lag a lot for people in some areas and be great for people in others. Having that many servers would cost a ridiculous amount of money which would probably mean that a monthly fee would be involved just to cover costs. No thanks.

  • 10.30.2009 8:20 PM PDT

You've Been SHWEGALED!!!

Um, prepare to be disappointed. Microsoft owns Halo. So, they use Microsoft's servers now.

And, Bungie has already complained about their very high power bill in there podcasts.

AND there severs are probably now used for B.net, which in-case you haven't noticed, has gotten VERY elaborate since there host change...

  • 10.30.2009 9:45 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2