By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Why can't the 360 have lots of people in online matches yet the PS3 can????

NKAJ on 29 June 2009
yo_john117 said:
Soul_tech10 said:
Here is why;
1: The PS3 IS better!!!!
2: XBOX 360 uses p2p servers, while the PS3 uses dedicated servers! p2p is rubbish and is only mainly used for file transfers and downloads, it will never be good for online gaming! I can't belive you pay money for crappy servers while we get top of the range servers for free!

 

Um its pretty obvious why i pay for xbox live...HALO 3!!!!   better than the PS3 itself!   And the ONLY time it lags in anything is when someone has a bad connection or they are cheating (lag switch)


oh dear...btw how else do you get lag other than bad connection?



"They will know heghan belongs to the helghast"

"England expects that everyman will do his duty"

"we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender"

 

Around the Network
NKAJ on 29 June 2009
selnor said:
Oh come on. Live is much more stable than PSN. Of course it can do like 250 people. Huxley is looking to do 500 people per server. And FF11 ( although that is an RPG ). It's not that 360 can't, it's that many many PC gamers who were playing 60 or 80 people online FPS years ago will tell you less people is better and more balanced.

Have you ever tried to get 30 people to work together in a game of 30v30? It's hard enough getting 12v12 to work together.


so conviently when 360 doesnt offer huge multiplayer games its obvioulsy because everybody knows they suck,yeah right.Im pretty sure once the 360 gets huge multiplayer games (if it does) then the same people will be saying how its bigger than the on ps3



"They will know heghan belongs to the helghast"

"England expects that everyman will do his duty"

"we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender"

 

yo_john117 on 29 June 2009
Tony_Parker said:
Yeah. You know MS fans are in trouble when they start talking about 1vs100 ;)

your off to a rather trolling start on vgchartz.



yo_john117 on 29 June 2009
NKAJ said:
yo_john117 said:
Soul_tech10 said:
Here is why;
1: The PS3 IS better!!!!
2: XBOX 360 uses p2p servers, while the PS3 uses dedicated servers! p2p is rubbish and is only mainly used for file transfers and downloads, it will never be good for online gaming! I can't belive you pay money for crappy servers while we get top of the range servers for free!

 

Um its pretty obvious why i pay for xbox live...HALO 3!!!!   better than the PS3 itself!   And the ONLY time it lags in anything is when someone has a bad connection or they are cheating (lag switch)


oh dear...btw how else do you get lag other than bad connection?

Lol yeah i know what your saying oh dear about, lol i wasn't being serious though.



Akvod on 29 June 2009
king_of_the_castle said:
How many people does FFXI have?


It's a MMO, but that has nothing to do with hardware since you could play FFXI on the PS2.



Around the Network
Epke on 29 June 2009

what is this talk about small games are better, random chaos is fun.



Sardauk on 29 June 2009
yo_john117 said:
Tony_Parker said:
Yeah. You know MS fans are in trouble when they start talking about 1vs100 ;)

your off to a rather trolling start on vgchartz.

Can a mod take car of the little pest ?

I tried to push the guy making a constructive message but he didn't joined for that reason apparently...



 

Evan Wells (Uncharted 2): I think the differences that you see between any two games has much more to do with the developer than whether it’s on the Xbox or PS3.

Tony_Parker on 29 June 2009

Well, Sardauk, maybe they should take care of YOU instead, since YOU're the one insulting me (you called me newbie, I used no personal attacks against you), and you just continued by using the word pest ;)

Please feel free to find any insulting comment against you in my posts ? There is none.

I just happen to disagree with you. I made multiple constructive messages, unlike you.

If you want to talk about online gaming on 360 and PS3, then be my guest and please answer my last post. I said PS3 experience was better since you could play with dozens of users simultaneously, like on Resistance 2 (64 people), Killzone 2 (32 people), or the future MAG (256 players).

I said it allowed a more strategic experience, by allowing huge scale battles...

I think it would be possible on the 360 too though, it just happens that there is no such game on the 360.



CaptDS9E on 29 June 2009
Tony_Parker said:
Wake me up when a REAL game (not a casual one like 1vs100) features 256 players on Live.

Right now there's none, so PS3 wins.

So casual games aren't real now?I guess we can keep changing the rules when it doesn't support your claim

 



Twitter:CaptDS9E

Tony_Parker on 29 June 2009

Casual games are nice too, but you can't compare 1vs100 to Halo 3 or MAG, I think everybody perfectly sees the difference here.

Halo is an action game, 1vs100 is a quiz...