With P2P your console is server and your ISP pays for bandwidth

With dedicated server - they pay for computer to host it and for the bandwidth consumed.

I think it's pretty laugtable that YOU have to pay for service which mostly relies on your machine and connection :)

Altrough P2P makes lot of sense for demo/trailers downloading for sure.

because the 360 uses p2p which is shit! M$ is the only company stupid enough to use p2p for online play. p2p is used for downloading movies, songs, pics etc, not online play. I'm going to have fun next year playing with/against 256 players!

Resistance: Fall of Man supported 40 players at the PS3's launch.

isnt gt5p p2p?

Just because you can have 256 players doesn't mean you should. As for P2P on 360, not every game is P2P. There are games that have their own private servers. Companies have been able to do this for years.

Both can support large multiplatform games but Sony favour the dedicated server and Microsoft the p2p. Microsoft are not bound to p2p only certainly the battlefield2 servers were dedicated EA servers but this is the minority in the Xbox online enviroment.

Dedicated servers have many advantages the downside though is cost. At some point the dedicated server support dries up.

P2P also has advantages one being cost the other the problem of server support is not in question.

In the world of PC gaming servers are paid for by the communities I am not aware this is the case with the PS3 although I see no reason why this could not be the case. It would remove two hurdles cost and servers availability.

As somebody who pays for Live I would like to see more dedicated server support. Personally dedicated support gives you a home, reliable availability and performance. They are pretty big for me and the reason I tend to still play online exclusively on my PC.

That is a typical answer of a (16 years old) die-hard Sony fanboy...

P2P is great because it allows dynamic matchmaking in every situation...

On XBLIve, you don't need to browse server like in 1995... you just start the matchmaking system and it will create you a party to play.

This also allows some dynamic playlist/ranking system like in HALO 3.

... but you are a fanboy in denial so you will never understand the positive aspects of a good (paying) service with XBL.

Enjoy your 256 players game... It doesn't had anything to the game anyway...

Didn't you guys see Jurassic Park? Just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should do something. I hope that M.A.G. kicks ass, but I'm taking a wait and see approach to it. I think some of you should too. The game has the potential to be an amazing one of a kind experience or the potential to be a huge cluster fuck. But, the question in the OP is why can't the 360 have lots of people in online matches, compared to the PS3. The answer: it can.

360 limitations. Some games is only possible on PS3.

If you have friends, you know the people whom you could touch (but not too much cos that'd be wierd) in the same city for example and you wanted to play with them P2P is probably better. If play P2P you can get rediculously low latency, whilst with a server its dependent on how far away and how busy that server is.

If I wanted to play KZ2 the servers are in Australia so thats an automatic 70ms of latency whilst most likely connecting to someone in the same city I would get something really tiny like 20ms automatically.