Would You Rather ... Laggy Edition
by Xav de Matos 
{ Mar 19th 2008 at 2:00PM }
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 1)
DeceasedFriend @ Mar 19th 2008 2:03PM
Dedicated servers. Of course, only if there are enough of them. But I hope that would be a given.
THE RPG NERD @ Mar 19th 2008 2:08PM
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.
Deck @ Mar 19th 2008 2:14PM
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.
CJ @ Mar 19th 2008 2:15PM
dedicated servers = no host advantage which would be huge particularly for GoW. I'm sure TF2 would also benefit from dedicated servers.
xenocidic @ Mar 19th 2008 2:17PM
a no brainer really
domo @ Mar 19th 2008 2:18PM
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....
SAGExSDX @ Mar 19th 2008 2:20PM
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.
digitarius @ Mar 19th 2008 2:27PM
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.
Homer 918 @ Mar 19th 2008 2:37PM
Dedicated servers are always going to be the best option (if implemented correctly) but it will never happen.
Helloimbob @ Mar 19th 2008 2:42PM
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...
spartan029 @ Mar 19th 2008 2:50PM
Can't ever have enough dedicated servers!! P2P...P2P
Jayslacks @ Mar 19th 2008 2:53PM
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...
Darko @ Mar 19th 2008 2:57PM
well since live isn't free... there should be more dedicated servers.
Leftisim @ Mar 19th 2008 3:00PM
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
xFenixKnightx @ Mar 19th 2008 3:02PM
Epic, dedicated servers for Gears 2 pleeeeeease!!!!
Vcize @ Mar 19th 2008 3:04PM
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.
qbix @ Mar 19th 2008 3:14PM
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.
Emphar @ Mar 19th 2008 3:31PM
Dedicated. It eliminates the host advantage. Everyone gets lag :)
Doom3killer @ Mar 19th 2008 3:31PM
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
Timur Tabi @ Mar 19th 2008 3:31PM
"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.
Sinnix @ Mar 19th 2008 4:13PM
COD4 and most of those other games you mention are NOT peer-to-peer, they're non-dedicated server. One XBOX acts as a server and all others communicate with it. In a peer-to-peer environment no console acts as a server and they all talk to each other.
To the best of my knowledge, the only recent game that uses Peer-to-peer is Army of Two.
Xav de Matos @ Mar 19th 2008 4:22PM
There seems to be confusion and it stems from the way I worded this. So I apologize and allow me to explain.
Microsoft, for the majority, runs of off Client Servers. The majority of PS3 games run off of peer-to-peer but since they also have server browsing functionality Sony (or other devs) set up dedicated servers you have the ability to join.
The question here is what do you prefer, a dedicated server you have no control over or a peer-to-peer (or client) server you do.
Tyler @ Mar 19th 2008 4:24PM
i would pay more money for dedicated
THE RPG NERD @ Mar 19th 2008 4:38PM
We already pay money.
OTAM @ Mar 19th 2008 5:27PM
How about dedicated servers for a PAY SERVICE. Silver gets everything but online gameplay for free,so essentially gold means you're paying for the privilege to use YOUR machine as a server.
What a fucking rib.
Zach S @ Mar 19th 2008 6:58PM
Peer-to-peer mainly because it allows a game to still have online replay value years later, since they generally shut down the servers for most dedicated ones, right? That would suck majorly, especially if you're a bargain bin gamer like me.
Deck @ Mar 19th 2008 8:24PM
@SAGExSDX: Why no server list? What do you have against those?
Boff @ Mar 20th 2008 7:25AM
Dedicated server got my vote it was an easy decision for me.
In an ideal game in an ideal world there would be dedicated regional servers, always with the added option of hosting your own games as a client server/p2p connection.
One can dream!!
IRB @ Mar 20th 2008 8:33AM
Peer-to-peer. Dedicated are good, until they switch off the servers! At least with peer-to-peer game I can play any game I own (we are talking 360 live enabled games obviously ;) despite its age with friends when ever I want to, even when it has been superceeded.
xenocidic @ Mar 20th 2008 10:52AM
Based on mixed reports I'm hearing about BF2:MC going down, I'm changing my vote (though I can't *actually* change my vote).
In a perfect world, we would have both, the way Frontlines does it, so that when devs no longer want to support dedicated servers (or want to take them down to force people to buy the new title *cough* bad company *cough*) you could still play the older, superior title, with choppers.
ccc @ Mar 20th 2008 10:58AM
Finally one I can make a choice on.
Xav you need to expierence tf2 when I host it, there is no lag.
Although I voted for a dedicated sever, its only so I'll be faster than all of you as opposed to you running my speed.
Doc @ Mar 20th 2008 11:14AM
As long as we are running through our 360 we are always going to see lag it's just the crappy net code that they insist on using and it will never change as long as MS makes consoles. There are too many loop holes your 360 has to make in order to login here and read this, it's just like their OS boated and under performance are the issues. I think that the 360 just isn't a strong as we would like to believe it is.
Sean @ Mar 20th 2008 1:40PM
@ Doc
Maybe it's just your connection then? I don't experience lag with most of my games, and when I do, it's latency (caused by my ISP + the distance) that is the issue - just like dedicated PC servers.
I've voted dedicated, simply because they can handle much greater player-numbers in games.
PeterF @ Mar 20th 2008 2:08PM
Give us dedicated servers (at least for the huge games) and DO IT RIGHT!
PeterF @ Mar 20th 2008 2:14PM
@Xav de Matos
How about a dedicated server that you DO have control over or are matchmade into?
For instance, you do the matchmaking in halo 3 and end up in a lobby, the game will then inform a dedicated server of the game, and everyone joins that server and play.