If its an issue of the game being to big and bad ass graphics wise to work online then isn't that a problem higher graphic games are going to have from now on? Or is this just an acute matter to be resolved with better machines?

There's timing, and then there's timing. If you feel you really need a latency of under 30ms in the internet, the logistics of it aren't easy at all. Virtua Fighter, according to its developers, would need less than 15ms of latency. That's exagerated, IMHO, but even then, you can imagine it's not an easy feat.

There's also the decision of how many servers you're willing to have. Keep in mind that, regardless of costs, having a lot of servers may mean reduced lantecies, but it also means there's a lot less people to play with on each server. That becomes a problem if the game is not imensly popular, and even if it is, once it gets old and there's less people playing it.

There's also the decision of what to do to regions that do not have enough players to even merit a server. Do you just leave them out in the cold? Do you put them in an existing server, where they'll noticeably degrade the expirience of everybody else? However you slice it, there will always be regions like this.

Also, with consoles you can't really handle direct connections between clients all that well, which is a common solution for PCs. Nor is it common for the server program to be released so that you can run it yourself and play with friends, or that your ISP may run it for you. These aren't really solutions you're going to have with devices which are supposed to "just work", at least not as of now.

The Xbox does LAN parties for some games, which would work for low latency games like Virtua Fighter. The Wii, however, doesn't and I don't see the PS3 doing it either (I may be mistaken). OTH this is just non split screen multiplayer, so if you're on already on a switched LAN, why not play on the same machine? The only use case scenario I see for it is dorms really.

Excellent post KruzeS. I like seeing post by those that are well informed on a subject. I look forward to seeing more of your posts. I only had the most basic of knowledge when it came to why VF5 won't work online. Thanks for the more detailed information.

(Double Post) Well since I cannot delete it. I guess I will make use of it. Does anyone know of any other Arcade Sticks that are compatible with the 360. I have heard mixed reviews on the DOA4 stick and its next to impossible to find anyway. I need a decent joystick not only for VF5 but for Street Fighter Anniversary collection and the upcoming SSF2 HD Remix.

I heard good reviews of the DOA4 stick. Outside of that, I haven't heard of any other major arcade fighter sticks on the market.

Buying the one that gets released later in the case of multiplatform release? This is impossible if you really want a game and it already came out on one console. You're not going to wait for the next version.

I'm not sure this is correct.  My understanding is that nearly ALL 360 Live titles actually run the games peer-to-peer.  Xbox Live servers simply set up the game, then pick one of the members of the game to be the host. 

 Halo 2, Halo 3 beta, CnC3, Gears, R6V, Shadowrun, etc. all worked this way.  You'll notice if you are in a match and the hosting player drops out, the entire match pauses while a new host is selected from the remaining players.

Also, the Xbox live servers attempt to match players with an eye toward latency, which would mean that if enough people were online and looking for a game, you'd be paired up with other players who have great ping rates to you.  Several of the live titles have indicators that show this.

While 15ms is a very high standard to try achieve, it seems strange to me that it is necessary on a fighting game with only two combatants and no projectiles, and yet games like Halo 2 track 16 individuals all issuing commands real time with vehicles, projectiles, bouncing grenades,  etc.

Think about how the H3 "man cannon" works for example.  You are flying through the air across a massive battle field at the speed of roughly a fast flying bird.  Other players can see you aim your gun and fire while you are in the air, and a good sniper can raise his gun and pull off a head shot!  Meanwhile 14 other players need to be transmitted all that information and send in their responses.

That, to me, seems a heck of a lot harder and would require lower latence than two guys fighting one quickly needs to send the block high command because his opponent has started the "high strike" manuver.

I just remembered why I never picked up the DOA4 stick. My local EB had it marked down to $39.99 sometime ago and I passed on it because I didn't like the feel of it. I had major issues with the DOA Arcade stick personally. I don't like ball still joysticks but more importantly, I don't like loose joysticks. If I would have gotten the DOA stick it would be useless on my Street Fighter games. Loose sticks are fine for 3D fighters because their are usually more tapping motions. Circle motions and combinaton Tap/Circle motions are very imprecise on a loose joystick. Also, when I saw Tap/Circle motions I mean moves like the Dragon Punch in which you tap F, then D, and then go into a circular motion.

According to the information of online connection for the wii. There exist the possibility of connecting a wii to a wii through wi-fi... If i am not mistaking, Battallion Wars 2 was using this feature during the playable demo... I remember that at IGN.com is a video showing multiplayer... so theoretically... is possible to use LAN on the Wii... but that depends entirely to the game... ( remember games like Kirby Air Ride and Mario Kart that could be played on lan.... )

OK, I looked further into this. That's why the Xbox seems to require you to forward UDP/TCP ports 88, 2074 and 3074 unless your router supports UPnP (which not all routers do). The PS3 also seems to use UPnP, and fall back on STUN(T).

Note that these are not general solutions - they may very well fail to work in a dorm, e.g., where you might not control any of the multiple tiers of routers. It'll probably work as long as at least one player in the group has an available public address. Otherwise, there's no option other than falling back to relay servers which greatly increases latencies.

Any way, in my book this really doesn't count as "just works", but I was wrong never the less. My bad.

Regarding your comments on FPSs, the truth is they really don't work that well in a way. But since you can't usually see bullets, it's easy enough to fool you into thinking they work. For the most part the server is authoritary, in that it's server clock that counts. And despite the fact that you're playing on a skewed clock it's manageable to make it work, by guesstimating the positions of players, projectiles, etc between updates. Since you can rarely see the one 100% acturate projectile (bullets) it's not a big deal. Grenades, rockets, all have a bigger window of effectiveness.

But I'm sure you've experienced inconsistencies such as headshoting a guy that doesn't die and all the sudden you're the one who's dead. Fighters like VF just make these inconsistencies all the more visible. To make them work one solution is actually slowing down the whole game according to lag, and you can see how that works on SF2 on Live. Or make fighters with bigger effectiveness time windows, like DOA.