In our continuing effort to bring you fresh and interesting content, X3F presents Would You Rather ... a weekly feature that asks you the hard questions. The point? If you had to choose one or the other, which would you go for?
It's the eternal question and a mainstay in the argument during the silly console war. Which is better? Dedicated servers or peer-to-peer connection? Sounds silly to even ask but let us examine our experiences.
While peer-to-peer has powered the vast majority of Xbox Live titles, some games have seen dedicated love. But how are the results? EA primarily uses their own servers to power their games, but have had issues. Frontlines: Fuel of War runs off a dedicated server farm, but it's been plagued with reports of lag too. Peer-to-peer has treated us well so far, but insane situations like XBLA titles running poorly, Team Fortress 2's virtual unplayability and issues stemming from the host migration in Call of Duty 4 makes this week's WUR a tough one. So X3F Army, tell us...
Feel free to share the reasons for your vote in the comments. We'll share the results of the poll during the next edition of Would You Rather ... which hits X3F every Wednesday.
Last weeks WUR results can be find after the jump ... and stop breathing heavily into the mic!
Last week's consolidation question ended in a dead heat. Taking out the standard percentage of error, the community is split on who they'd prefer be put under the EA wing. Our opinion? As long as the games come out solid we don't care. Xav's sports opinion? Leave 2K alone - NBA 2K8 FTW!
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
3-19-2008 @ 2:03PM
DeceasedFriend said...
Dedicated servers. Of course, only if there are enough of them. But I hope that would be a given.
Reply
3-19-2008 @ 2:08PM
THE RPG NERD said...
Is it technically possible to have both? That way if they decide to take down the games servers the remaining people that still want to play the game could continue using a peer-to-peer play.
Reply
3-19-2008 @ 2:14PM
Deck said...
Peer-to-peer. My reason? Dedicated are absolutely great, but many times (EA for example) come unprepared when hosting them for their games. P2P you don't have to worry about that. Yes COD4 had the host migration problem (which I've only had happen once since the patch now) but it wasn't THAT bad. I mean, it clearly sucked but to me it didn't make me stop playing the game. An overloaded or not working dedicated server would because it wouldn't be possible to play at all.
Now don't get me wrong, most dedicated servers are the best way to go. But if I bought a game (say Frontlines) I wouldn't want to risk not being able to play multiplayer for a month while they got all the kinks fixed. I just want to jump right in.
Reply
3-19-2008 @ 2:15PM
CJ said...
dedicated servers = no host advantage which would be huge particularly for GoW. I'm sure TF2 would also benefit from dedicated servers.
Reply
3-19-2008 @ 2:17PM
xenocidic said...
a no brainer really
Reply
3-19-2008 @ 2:18PM
domo said...
The host migration in COD4 is a serious ass and seems worse after the update. Halo 3 had great network code IMO. But dedicated servers would be lush... comoan MS, can we have some return on that subscription....
Reply
3-19-2008 @ 2:20PM
SAGExSDX said...
i would say dedicated servers only if that didn't imply a server list. if they use dedicated servers for Halo3/COD4-style matchmade games (which i'm not sure if it's possible), then maybe i might vote dedicated servers.
Reply
3-19-2008 @ 2:27PM
digitarius said...
Dedicated servers should be required, making the assumption that they're generally properly funded and set up. Frankly, the QA of Live multiplayer needs to be notched up a bit.
Take COD. My last count over the course of two days is that I've had the host bail or end the game on 1 out of every 10 matches. At LEAST twice this was because the host knew he had host and intentionally left the game as soon as his team got ahead.
If Live mandated that you include REAL host migration (And not the faux, lets kick you guys back into the same lobby kind of crap COD gives us) almost all my COD complaints would vanish.
Not to mention P2P is much easier to exploit for cheaters and gives the host a (sometimes serious) unfair advantage.
Microsoft needs to flesh out and standardize MP across live. If you took COD4 gameplay and used Halo 3 Matchmaking... just think about how warm and fuzzy that makes you feel inside.
Reply
3-19-2008 @ 2:37PM
Homer 918 said...
Dedicated servers are always going to be the best option (if implemented correctly) but it will never happen.
Reply
3-19-2008 @ 2:42PM
Helloimbob said...
Peer to peer because you can banhammer people with poor connections from matchmaking for a while(like bungie do) to improve the gameplay online... dedicated servers are just gonna be left there...
Reply
3-19-2008 @ 2:50PM
spartan029 said...
Can't ever have enough dedicated servers!! P2P...P2P
Reply
3-19-2008 @ 2:53PM
Jayslacks said...
Aggreed with the Dedicated Server love. But Microsoft will never pay for that. If anything, there should be some middle ground, a way for Live to check out your connection thoroughly to the point where lag just can not happen...
Reply
3-19-2008 @ 2:57PM
Darko said...
well since live isn't free... there should be more dedicated servers.
Reply
3-19-2008 @ 3:00PM
Leftisim said...
The problem is filters it wont do a fucking thing either way if connect to someone on the other end of the world lag is always going to be a problem. But untill people take a stand and do something about it No developer is going to take a blind bit of notice id rather have a good connection in my own country and play fellow people from my county than play some laggy bastard on the other side of the world just my 2 cents :D
Reply
3-19-2008 @ 3:02PM
xFenixKnightx said...
Epic, dedicated servers for Gears 2 pleeeeeease!!!!
Reply
3-19-2008 @ 3:04PM
Vcize said...
Dedicated servers in general, but P2P does have its advantages.
Aside from the obvious (when dedicated servers get shut down you can no longer play at all), it's nice to be able to make your own room anytime you want if you just want to explore the map, play a game with only a couple of people, or practice/play an organized tournament match.
Reply
3-19-2008 @ 3:14PM
qbix said...
If I have to sign up for a fucking EA account to play GTA multiplayer I will burn the game, I swear I will and I'll put the video on youtube. What will that accomplish? Nothing, I don't think, but it will be a statement against the way they make games worse by not conforming to standards.
The reason I haven't played Burnout's multiplayer, which I would very much love to do, is because I DON'T want EA to gather specific details about my Xbox Live account from MS. I don't want to agree with the fact that they may share this information with their partners (clearly stated in the sign up screen), and I don't want this to become standard with EA games.
Burnout, as a game, was just fine, I have fun playing it, so I don't think the games themselves will deteriorate (too much) due to an EA acquisition, but they will suffer from the control-freak and assembly-line attitude EA is known for. So, no I don't think EA should take over any more studios, specially Take-Two. Ubisoft has a similar assembly-line attitude (a game like RSV2 is in my opinion a overpriced expansion pack), so if I had to choose between the lesser of two evils I'd have to go with EA taking over Ubisoft.
Reply
3-19-2008 @ 3:31PM
Doom3killer said...
p2p... dedicated servers depend on how far away from them u r... if all r in japan u will get tons of lag compared to p2p with someone in ur city
Reply
3-19-2008 @ 3:31PM
Timur Tabi said...
"Deck" is right. The problem with dedicated servers is that you're dependent on the developer to maintain the servers. Look what happened with Burnout 3 for the original Xbox -- they shut down the servers after a few years, and only resurrected them when MS made BO3 available for download.
Reply
3-19-2008 @ 3:31PM
Emphar said...
Dedicated. It eliminates the host advantage. Everyone gets lag :)
Reply