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

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

Sardauk on 29 June 2009
Tony_Parker said:
Says the guy who called me 'newbie' in his first post earlier. Oh the irony. Look at yourself in a mirror troll, I didn't attack you, YOU did.

I gave you my explanation : dedicated servers offer a better experience, 256 players games are what makes the PS3 superior in online (Resistance 2 or Killzone 2 also allow big matches too)...

I still had no answer to my question : which game on 360 allows you to play with 256 gamers ?

Or are you too busy trolling ?

Newbie is your VGchartz status (check your profile).

About 360 games allowing 256 players, it is not the problem of the game (Halo 3 or COD could perfectly fits 256 players no problem IMO), it is just an architecture choice made for the plateform, not a technical limitation.

In P2P, you can hardly ask a domestic connection to centralize 254 others, that is way you need a dedicated server with a dedicated connections.

It has nothing to do with the games or the machines that is playing it. I don't think the console handles the 255 locations of the other players, it must be segmented (like in battlefield games): I believe the console will only handle the locations of near players.

This system is nothing new and rely entierly on the server side... the PS3 must be just one of the 256 "terminals" attached to it... I hardly believe it host and calculates the entire battle...



 

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.

Around the Network
welshbloke on 29 June 2009

This has nothing to do with what PSN servers can handle rather a difference in implementation. As I mentioned earlier The Xbox just like the PS3 can also use dedicated servers but as a rule they do not.

The biggest game on the 360 would be Frontline Fuels of War with 50 which uses xbox live dedicated servers or 16 using p2p (seems this game does the best of both worlds). This is the exception though and not the rule.



W.L.B.B. Member, Portsmouth Branch.

(Welsh(Folk) Living Beyond Borders)

Winner of the 2010 VGC Holiday sales prediction thread with an Average 1.6% accuracy rating. I am indeed awesome.

Kinect as seen by PS3 owners ...if you can pick at it   ...post it ... Did I mention the 360 was black and Shinny? Keeping Sigs obscure since 2007, Passed by the Sig police 5July10.
CaptDS9E on 29 June 2009

Actually the highest number of players in 1 game on console is not 101 or 256. There are over 100,000 people on live games during 1 vs 100



Twitter:CaptDS9E

welshbloke on 29 June 2009

:) We have a winner...



W.L.B.B. Member, Portsmouth Branch.

(Welsh(Folk) Living Beyond Borders)

Winner of the 2010 VGC Holiday sales prediction thread with an Average 1.6% accuracy rating. I am indeed awesome.

Kinect as seen by PS3 owners ...if you can pick at it   ...post it ... Did I mention the 360 was black and Shinny? Keeping Sigs obscure since 2007, Passed by the Sig police 5July10.
Sardauk on 29 June 2009

The old pc game, Runscape, had 2.000 players per servers...



 

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.

Around the Network
Munkeh111 on 29 June 2009

Because teh PS3 is the beterer

Anyway, yeah it is all to do with P2P, I know for a fact that for Warhawk, Sony have a room filled with PS3s acting as servers (well they did at launch)

And yeah, MAG is only possible on the PS3, Sony own that name



Sardauk on 29 June 2009
Munkeh111 said:

And yeah, MAG is only possible on the PS3, Sony own that name

Lol



 

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.

JaggedSac on 29 June 2009
Squilliam said:
Kantor said:

This really has nothing to do with Live being better or worse than PSN.

It's about the fact that PSN's servers can handle more people than those of Live, which from what we've seen so far is true. The highest number of players in a single game out right now is 60 101 110,000 , in R2 100 vs 1, on PS3 Xbox 360. The highest scheduled for the future is 256, in MAG, on PS3.

Fixed.

Live games use P2P mostly because matchmaking is built deep into the core of Live.  MS offers an extensive API that handles tons of the online aspect of the games, giving developers an easy way to add online into their games.  Some use it, some don't.  Matchmaking is much easier to implement in a P2P environment.



Squilliam on 29 June 2009

^ Do all those people play in the exact same game? I thought it was like 100 vs 1 with the rest kinda acting like specators.



Tease.

Akvod on 29 June 2009
KylieDog said:
yo_john117 said:

 

I think it really depends on which game you play, halo doesn't lag often, games like battlefield bad company don't lag, COD, doesn't really either.  And gears 2, what little amount of online i played, i had to wait at the most a minute or 2 for people to join.

 

BFBC uses dedicated servers.  I am almost sure that P2P could not handle the destruction the game provides.  BFBC2 will have micro destruction, no chance in hell for P2P working with that.


BFBC can have some pretty rough days on the PS3 with the connection.