Bungie Universe
This topic has moved here: Poll [21 votes]: $10 a month for dedicated servers?
  • Poll [21 votes]: $10 a month for dedicated servers?
Subject: Would You Pay $10/month for 32 player Halo 2 on Dedicated Servers?
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Poll: $10 a month for dedicated servers?  [closed]
Hell Yeah:  48%
(10 Votes)
Hell No:  33%
(7 Votes)
Hell, I Haven't Decided:  19%
(4 Votes)
Total Votes: 21

It could be an option. Those of us who want to play on Microsoft dedicated servers can pay $10 a month for massive 32 player games while those of us who don't care about large games can play the regular P2P crap.

  • 04.30.2004 9:16 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

if you pay the beer

  • 04.30.2004 9:30 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

10 bucks a month.... right now i would have to say no, but if i get a job by then its definitly hell yeah

  • 04.30.2004 9:35 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Hey i'll survive with normal servers... maybe if i get a bit more money but i don't like the idea of an extra subscription. I can understand about paying for occasionally d/c but it would be too much for that.

  • 04.30.2004 9:39 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I voted yet. Although I think on some maps it might be a little horrendous, on maps like Waterworks it would be brilliant. Out of the pages of Battlefield 1942 (where there are 64 players allowed on some dedicated servers). I doubt this will happen though. I wouldn't mind 32 players playable at a LAN. That's a lot of TV's a routers, but who the hell cares...


[Edited on 4/30/2004 11:32:27 AM]

  • 04.30.2004 11:32 AM PDT

Twelve Large ²

An army of sheep led by a lion would defeat an army of lions led by a sheep.

Arsynic, just because a Live subscriber happens to be hosting the gameplay, that sure as hell doesn't make the network topology behind the gameplay "peer to peer". And if Microsoft decides to host dedicated servers, that doesn't make the game "not peer to peer".

I would only pay to play for really good -blam!-. 32 players is the most retarded way to think you're going to create a great game. I'll gladly pay for the experience, if it's worth it, but I will NEVER pay for the amount of players in game 16, 32, or 132. That would make for some stupid gameplay ideas for easy money if gamers had low expectations like that. Gamers should expect sooo much more.

Now, on the other hand, if bungie were to give me a massively multiplayer world (not maps): Persistant Worlds/Enviornments, with a continuing story that is told in real time through bungie.net, headset, cg's, gameplay, etc.. Maybe they could allow us to rank up multiple characters in the Halo world, allow us to search for clues and forerunner artifacts and crap like that, similar to a real MMRPG. Then maybe it would be worth ten bucks..

But there's no way in hell I'm going to pay ten bucks a month to hear players -blam!- about the fact that I have a lower ping to "the dedicated 32 player servers located ONLY in Washington". No -blam!- way.

On the other hand, if they put together tournaments that allowed us to earn our money back, and then some, then I might think about it. But paying for something as simple as 32 players is probably the dumbest thing I've ever heard, sorry.

  • 04.30.2004 1:32 PM PDT