XBL Silver offers Free Online Play

TheStig1 said:
thats not always the case though
cod and rainbow 8 v 8 which works fine and in my experience smaller team sizes make for better team work
Click to expand...

Thats not really the issue though is it? On a xbox you CANT get more than a handful of players without issues, off the top of my head i think COD probably tops the list with 24
on the pc and ps3 can offer in the region of 60 with huge maps

As such the 360 as it is will never offer an immersive experience of being in a warzone for this very reason, you will never get multi-tier squad based combat al-la resistance 2/battlefield series

Stop blindly defending something and try take a detached look at the situation, while i agree in all cases it is not better to have more players it is also completely idiotic to claim the inverse is true
 
Chronictank said:
Thats not really the issue though is it? On a xbox you CANT get more than a handful of players without issues, off the top of my head i think COD probably tops the list with 24
on the pc and ps3 can offer in the region of 60 with huge maps

As such the 360 as it is will never offer an immersive experience of being in a warzone for this very reason, you will never get multi-tier squad based combat al-la resistance 2/battlefield series

Stop blindly defending something and try take a detached look at the situation, while i agree in all cases it is not better to have more players it is also completely idiotic to claim the inverse is true
Click to expand...

it is the issue for me i prefer smaller teams as it makes more team play instead of 30 other people running around playing for themselves
frontlines can hold more people as it has dedi servers so really not sure why your blindly bashing something how about you take a detached look
ok live does not suit you fine
suits millions of people who are quite happy with it
 
I don't think its a case of can't, more they just haven't. Didn't Frontline and Battlefield 2 MC have quite large teams? There's no reason I know of that 360 couldn't handle as many players as PS3 online.
 
Some people are forgetting that you are not stuck with 16vs 16 or 30 vs 30 on these games, you can also have 4v4 8v8 etc and the maps will scale accordingly. So saying Id rather it be 4vs4 is a mute point as you can anyway as long as the maps scale accordingly or else it take 10 mins to find anyone lol.
 
Shamikebab said:
There's no reason I know of that 360 couldn't handle as many players as PS3 online.
Click to expand...
Sure it could, but you gotta let them have something to put down as a win over the 360.

The only problem would be servers having the bandwidth to host the games with that many players, MS will probably go dedicated within the next year.
 
msmalls74 said:
Some people are forgetting that you are not stuck with 16vs 16 or 30 vs 30 on these games, you can also have 4v4 8v8 etc and the maps will scale accordingly. So saying Id rather it be 4vs4 is a mute point as you can anyway as long as the maps scale accordingly or else it take 10 mins to find anyone lol.
Click to expand...

what games have maps that scale depending on players?
 
TheStig1 said:
what games have maps that scale depending on players?
Click to expand...

Resistance and Warhawk spring to mind and im sure plenty of the battlefield and Unreal games did, ok it wasnt an auto scaling if that is what you meant. If you wanted a small 4vs4 or 8 player deathmatch the options are there to allow you just to use the smaller versions of the map.
BTW this is getting off topic now sorry lol
 
Jihad said:
Sure it could, but you gotta let them have something to put down as a win over the 360.
Click to expand...

It's very important for them to believe that games such as MAG, Killzone 2, MGS IV and FFXIII are only capable because of the awesome power of the cell and blu-ray, oh wait.
 
TheStig1 said:
since his 360 does not work then thats not a problem
why do you need to challenge me all the time please grow up
plus he has never played a 360 game on his account yet nevermind online lol
Click to expand...

are you stalking me now? I've played plenty of online games on the 360. btw, my 360 is back from repair.

Get off your high horse already.

Paying for LIVE is rip off. They just made LIVE on the pc free because no one is paying for it.
 
TheStig1 said:
it is the issue for me i prefer smaller teams as it makes more team play instead of 30 other people running around playing for themselves
Click to expand...
Sorry but if you even dabbled in a descent BF2 game you would realise this was tripe, hence you blindly bashing it. Using your example how is 16 people running around playing for themselves any different from 30 doing the same in terms of teamplay?

frontlines can hold more people as it has dedi servers
Click to expand...
Frontlines is capped at 16 players p2p when i had a look ages ago, i didnt realise there were dedicated servers i stand corrected it isnt technically unfeasable, it is just money grabbing stopping them implementing it on most games but to be honest, why would they? you are happy with it afterall

so really not sure why your blindly bashing something how about you take a detached look
ok live does not suit you fine
suits millions of people who are quite happy with it
Click to expand...
Of no relevance to our discussion, but if you read my post i said it was a rip-off as a gaming platform as the majority of games are p2p, and some of their big releases are useless online and even on lan (see the entire halo series, we had lag on a LAN let alone on the net)
i made no reference to how good the community aspect is.

Perhaps i am spoilt as a PC gamer at heart, but i dont think it is too much to ask for a descent service for something you have no choice but to pay for if you want to play online. They could just have easily allowed gaming only from the silver sub and all the extras on gold, but we both know their subscriptions numbers would plummet
 
Last edited:
Chronictank said:
Sorry but if you even dabbled in a descent BF2 game you would realise this was tripe, hence you blindly bashing it. Using your example how is 16 people running around playing for themselves any different from 30 doing the same in terms of teamplay?
Click to expand...

you what?
i have played bf2 and bf2142 for a lot of hours
tripe because i prefer smaller numbers of players and more team work?
you cant force everyone to think the same as you
30 on the same team in bf2 squad is limited to what 4 or 8 anyway is it not? so you can only hear them anyway and thats if they are using voip which is rare
i pay to maintain a rfactor racing server on pc you just probably come along and think oooh free server and use it
someone is paying for it though just because you aint does not make it free
 
Chronictank said:
Sorry but if you even dabbled in a descent BF2 game you would realise this was tripe, hence you blindly bashing it. Using your example how is 16 people running around playing for themselves any different from 30 doing the same in terms of teamplay?
Click to expand...

Because it's easier to organise a smaller team? Organising a four man CTF team on Halo for example is far easier than organising a 32 man team would be. Plus you have tyo remember that the majority of games are played with strangers, and on the PS3 lots of people don't have voice chat, surely you must see how it would descend into chaos?

Chronictank said:
Frontlines is capped at 16 players p2p when i had a look ages ago, i didnt realise there were dedicated servers i stand corrected it isnt technically unfeasable, it is just money grabbing stopping them implementing it on most games but to be honest, why would they? you are happy with it afterall
Click to expand...

What's it got to do with money? I think they have tested it and found that larger team's just don't work the majority of the time. Sure if you have a clan who practice a lot and know each other's game inside out then it would work, but these people make up a very small minority.
 
TheStig1 said:
you what?
i have played bf2 and bf2142 for a lot of hours
tripe because i prefer smaller numbers of players and more team work?
you cant force everyone to think the same as you
30 on the same team in bf2 squad is limited to what 4 or 8 anyway is it not? so you can only hear them anyway and thats if they are using voip which is rare
Click to expand...
No my issue was you made it out that squadplay cannot exist on a bigger scale

i pay to maintain a rfactor racing server on pc you just probably come along and think oooh free server and use it
Click to expand...
Would you pay someone else to advertise a game-server you host in your own home, using your own line, and you pay for already?

someone is paying for it though just because you aint does not make it free
Click to expand...
I did not in any way say that the fee is the issue, IF there was something worth paying for in terms of a gaming experience (bold to emphasise the fact i am not talking about community aspects of XBL)

TheStig1 said:
it is the issue for me i prefer smaller teams as it makes more team play instead of 30 other people running around playing for themselves
Click to expand...
Teamplay is not restricted to a single micro-group, a whole battlefield can be played as a team that was my point. There may be inter-team squadplay, but then there is also the bigger picture, represented by the commander where tactics of moving teams around the field plays out.
This is also, you guessed it, team play on a bigger scale
 
Last edited:
i said in my experience the larger the number of the players the less likely team work is used
thats my feeling no idea why that makes you say its tripe
you feel differently thats fine to me you dont need to pay for live as it would not suit your gaming needs
it suits mine perfectly however
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom