ethomaz said:
|
Pemalite said:
n Australia Live is better than PSN because internet providers like iiNet, Westnet, Internode, Netspace, Adam Internet etc' provide Xbox Live content data-free (You need expensive equipment to catch the packets on Akami to do that.), so you can download untill the cows come home.
Microsoft seems to have more bandwidth and lower latency too, at-least here. - That can change massively depending on location, internet connection, Internet provider etc' of course, even rain can affect such things if you're still stuck on copper.
As for the individual content on the networks, well. Everyone would be biased about that as we all have different tastes in games and content, which is a good thing.
Of course, I still think Steam beats them both, it's not only free to use, but it provides free content and free games, internet providers all around the world also set-up dedicated servers near their content delivery networks for lower latency and higher bandwidth and less down times for all the Steam things.
My internet provider (Internode via Games.on.net) is a big supporter of Steam actually.
|
Here (Brazil) using the same internet provider I can't say the server are different... sometimes the download is better on Live and others time it is better on PSN... overall the download is pretty good in both.
PSN have more downtime for maintance and the Store updates have some mistakes yet but that's the difference between how the two deal with the updates/maintance... it is not server related.
I really can't see diference between the server on PSN and Live.
So who says "better servers" I call biased... you can says Live have better content, or like you said the plan with your internet provider is better, or you have cross voice chat, etc... but in terms of servers there are no difference today.
Even for games... the multiplaforms uses the same servers (when there are servers) for both versions of the game... and the first-party uses the servers (when there are servers) provided by Sony/MS but I can't tell the difference.
If there are any game with server on 360 and no server on PS3 then I can agree but this case never happened too.
So what is that talk about "better servers"?
|
I don't know if the servers are better or worse than each other.
But we do know Microsoft generally has more servers than most other company's, just that what is allocated to the Xbox is a fraction of that entire pool, as far as I know neither Sony nor Microsoft have given numbers or locations of the server farms either.
Most games though use P2P networking where a player is selected as a host and other players connect to them.
The servers though handle the matchmaking and other small nuances to get a game started.
From a network perspective though, it's going to vary depending on individual circumstances and location. :)
Steam though, has better servers, that really can't be argued because internet providers all around the world pitch in to make the Steam network. :)
For example Blizzard has Australia's servers in Singapore, which is a good 150ms travel time, most other company's do a similar thing rather than hosting the servers physically in my country, Steam got around that by making internet providers deal with it, my Steam servers are less than a 30ms hop away.
