Support NeoGAF

[User 406]

To answer your question, yes I understand the difference between the two, but you completely missed my point which is: Why would I, or anyone for that matter, care about how it works, why it works they way it does, etc. if it works and works well? I'm paying for the ability to play the games I want to play online, against other peeps, "with as little LAG influence as possible". I dont care how they do it, just do it. If games were severly lag influenced, I wouldnt pay for it regardless of what topology is being used.

Look, you still aren't getting it. You're insisting that you don't care how they do it, I'm telling you that they CAN'T. A subscription based service for peer-to-peer online gaming CAN'T reduce lag, because it can't possibly control the connections between peers across the internet.

And of course a matching server cant influence the connections once they are established, but the software can. And I bet this'll become more and more commonplace in online gaming as more and more people obtain fast net access. Especially with games increasing the amount of traffic that they want to send. Scaling a central server to keep up with this trend is almost impossible.

Improvements to the networking code, predictive algorithms or what have you, will be ON THE GAME DISC. Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with any matching service, and does not merit an ongoing subscription fee at all.

Why are you so insistant on rationalizing paying for something that has never needed a fee before? This is the kind of attitude that worries me, as I mentioned in my first post.

 

[seismologist]

Sony needs to come through with a better online plan next gen. It should be modeled after the PC where somehow you can set up your own dedicated servers for games.

 

[P90]

I cant believe at how some of you are committed to Nintendo. You cant defend them when it comes to online, you just cant.

From a short term bottomline viewpoint, yes, Nintendo is doing the "right" thing. If this is the smartest thing long term needs to be determined. Will online gaming be the "big" thing? Trends this gen seem to be saying "no". This isn't a "defense of Nintendo", just objectively looking at reports and ledger sheets.

Though I own all three consoles, I have yet to use my Xbox or PS2 online. Ain't got the time and the online games out there don't appeal enough to me to get "online". BB is too expensive in relation to the time I would use it. 4 controller ports (or tap), controllers, friends and family over is all I need. Market reports seem to indicate I fall in a majority demographic in regards to this.

 

[Saint Cornelius]

What, is this supposed to "own" me?

You need some Xanax or something, chill you out a bit

 

[PhatSaqs]

Look, you still aren't getting it. You're insisting that you don't care how they do it, I'm telling you that they CAN'T. A subscription based service for peer-to-peer online gaming CAN'T reduce lag, because it can't possibly control the connections between peers across the internet.

Improvements to the networking code, predictive algorithms or what have you, will be ON THE GAME DISC. Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with any matching service, and does not merit an ongoing subscription fee at all.

Why are you so insistant on rationalizing paying for something that has never needed a fee before? This is the kind of attitude that worries me, as I mentioned in my first post.

Umm.
I'm not rationalizing anything. I'm telling you that I DONT CARE about the topology used and really, NEITHER SHOULD YOU just as long as it functions well. Why that is so hard for you to comprehend I have no idea. If it works well, why should you/me/milli vanilli care?!? I guess I can kind of understand if you say you hold some sort of endearment for using a client/server topology for networked gaming for reason #463736....

Other than that, I dont know what else to say. I'm willing to pay for what XBL offers as long as it works great, no matter what topology they use to give me what i'm looking for, and you're not. Pretty simple.

 

[User 406]

Umm.
I'm not rationalizing anything. I'm telling you that I DONT CARE about the topology used and really, NEITHER SHOULD YOU just as long as it functions well. Why that is so hard for you to comprehend I have no idea. If it works well, why should you/me/milli vanilli care?!? I guess I can kind of understand if you say you hold some sort of endearment for using a client/server topology for networked gaming for reason #463736....

You said you were willing to pay for a service that reduces lag.

I told you that wasn't possible.

Now you're just retreating into denial. XBL does NOT reduce lag. Period. The fact you don't care doesn't change that.

Other than that, I dont know what else to say. I'm willing to pay for what XBL offers as long as it works great, no matter what topology they use to give me what i'm looking for, and you're not. Pretty simple.

So what you're saying here is that you don't care that the service doesn't actually reduce lag, as long as you get to pay for it.

Got it.

 

[PhatSaqs]

You said you were willing to pay for a service that reduces lag.

I told you that wasn't possible.

Now you're just retreating into denial. XBL does NOT reduce lag. Period. The fact you don't care doesn't change that.

So what you're saying here is that you don't care that the service doesn't actually reduce lag, as long as you get to pay for it.

Got it.

Reading comprehension.....

I'll give you my initial quote again so hopefully you get what I initially said during a second pass:

I dont see why anyone should care what type of structure the service has as long as it offers the ability to play and enjoy the games they want to play with as little LAG influence as possible...

Now explain to me how you squeezed "I'm willing to pay for a service that reduces lag" out of that quote. Then explain to me how it's "not possible" for any type of topology or service, including XBL, to not be influenced by latency/lag.

The clock starts now...

 

[User 406]

Reading comprehension.....

I'll give you my initial quote again so hopefully you get what I initially said during a second pass:

Now explain to me how you squeezed "I'm willing to pay for a service that reduces lag" out of that quote. Then explain to me how it's "not possible" for any type of topology or service, including XBL, to not be influenced by latency/lag.

The clock starts now...

Okay.

And really, I dont see why anyone should care what type of structure the service has as long as it offers the ability to play and enjoy the games they want to play with as little LAG influence as possible . That's the most important aspect to me. And for that, i'm definitley willing to pay for.

The bolded part is the bit you left out in your above post.

Not good enough?

I'm paying for the ability to play the games I want to play online, against other peeps, "with as little LAG influence as possible".

More?

I dont care how they do it, just do it. If games were severly lag influenced, I wouldnt pay for it regardless of what topology is being used.

Guess what, your XBL games are just as lag influenced as the totally free ones.

Feel free to backpedal and claim that what you meant was that you're happy to pay a subscription fee for playing the games you want to play, and that those multiple references to reduced lag weren't really important.

If you want to worry about reading comprehension, try the bit where I told you that a peer-to-peer matching service can't reduce lag. You've gone several posts now insisting how you don't care and making vague references to topologies while failing to acknowledge that.

 

[PhatSaqs]

Okay.

Guess what, your XBL games are just as lag influenced as the totally free ones.

Feel free to backpedal and claim that what you meant was that you're happy to pay a subscription fee for playing the games you want to play, and that those multiple references to reduced lag weren't really important.

If you want to worry about reading comprehension, try the bit where I told you that a peer-to-peer matching service can't reduce lag. You've gone several posts now insisting how you don't care and making vague references to topologies while failing to acknowledge that.

You are obviously completely lost here, don't understand the difference in meaning between the words "influence" and "reduce", or just enjoy changing words around to fit your own definition. Either way, I suggest reading a dictionary and repeatedly reading the defintions of those words to help you out in the future. Hell, looking up other words might help you out as well.

 

[User 406]

You are obviously completely lost here, don't understand the difference in meaning between the words "influence" and "reduce", or just enjoy changing words around to fit your own definition. Either way, I suggest reading a dictionary and repeatedly reading the defintions of those words to help you out in the future. Hell, looking up other words might help you out as well.

No. You're the one dancing around defintions. A matching server can NOT reduce, influence, curtail, alleviate, or in fact do FUCK ALL about lag between the peers. I've been saying that the whole time.

And you said this:

And really, I dont see why anyone should care what type of structure the service has as long as it offers the ability to play and enjoy the games they want to play with as little LAG influence as possible . That's the most important aspect to me. And for that, i'm definitley willing to pay for.

The most important aspect of XBL to you, according to your OWN WORDS, doesn't exist.

 

[krypt0nian]

Whats that you say? killer app?

Waiting for the superior PC version (again)

Killer app! [face_throwup]

 

[DrGAKMAN]

Okay...so Nintendo should waste time/money/resources and as someone said confuse the hell outta consumers JUST to save face? I tell you, MS & Sony are big names and are known as bigger companies so people would probably consider their "networks" for online gaming better still than anything Nintendo could do...regardless of wether it was true or not. Not saying Nintendo shouldn't have tried, but the time/money/resources/confusion thing comes back into play there. And you know, with things like Sega's PSO, GameSpy, Warp Pipe and the like there ARE ways to take your GAMECUBE online if you absolutly wanted to. Sure, it's nothing too special or organized, but hey...it's still there.

The argument that "Nintendo should do it this generation so they can work out the problems and establish themselves as an online gaming company" *still* doesn't outweigh the negatives I listed above, nor does it take into account that in order to go online you need a broadband connection access as well as money to pay for broadband let alone any service fee's for the gaming network. Right now, it's a niche inside of a niche. It's gonna mean more next generation as network/server costs go down and broadband penetration is in more households...but even then it's gonna take some time before it becomes this infamous "future" of gaming. Then there's the whole need for compelling software to make good use of online gaming...and Nintendo's got the properties to *really* do this when they finally do so that argument of "Nintendo won't be an established online company" bla bla bla is rediculous.

I think, as I said in another thread, it may be Nintendo's goal to lower our expectations and then all the sudden shock people with something they didn't expect. Most Nintendo naysayers believe that Nintendo won't get into online gaming until it's too late or whatever...wouldn't it be shocking if Nintendo comes out next E3 and tells us "Revolution" *is* going online from day one? There's already a lil' bit of evidence for this. Mr. Iwata said you can hook up the "Revolution" to your PC monitor...that's nice for higher-res visuals, but why tell us...is there more to this? Then there's the rumored leaked specs which highlight a small HD built-in to each "Revolution" console...this could definatly be used to create a self-server network for each user. Nintendo is also dabbling with wireless networking...which won't cost as much and will probably end up being easily accessible. Then there's the whole deal they made with AOL a while back...who knows?

Nowhere am I saying that Nintendo WILL go online next generation, but it would fit in with the whole "shock" approach they've been using recently and it would make sense to go for it when it matters more (next generation) then to throw something half-assed together for this generation.

 

[EviLore]

PhatSaqs, your argument is so incredibly appalling and worthless that I'm going to have to send you to the Time-Out Chamber. Take that time to reread what you said and actually attempt to comprehend the discussion.

 

[Orin GA]

Hit him Carl! You too Lenny!

 

[FoneBone]

I admit that I haven't really been following this, but are PS3 and Xenon expected to have out-of-the-box online support? That could really hurt Nintendo.

 

[Alcibiades]

From a short term bottomline viewpoint, yes, Nintendo is doing the "right" thing. If this is the smartest thing long term needs to be determined. Will online gaming be the "big" thing? Trends this gen seem to be saying "no". This isn't a "defense of Nintendo", just objectively looking at reports and ledger sheets.

Though I own all three consoles, I have yet to use my Xbox or PS2 online. Ain't got the time and the online games out there don't appeal enough to me to get "online". BB is too expensive in relation to the time I would use it. 4 controller ports (or tap), controllers, friends and family over is all I need. Market reports seem to indicate I fall in a majority demographic in regards to this.

current sales numbers also indicate you fall into the majority. Better for Nintendo to focus on fighting for your dollar than than waste resources now on the 5% who go online. later the techonology will be affordable and more widespread.

 

[kaching]

You have to wonder how much of Nintendo's current, pessimistic perception of online gaming is its own self-fulfilling prophecy though. Rather than proactively demonstrate how the online business models of their competitors are wrong, they'd rather just use the experiences of their competitors for validation to maintain their status quo.

Sony's and Microsoft's approach to console online gaming are very different right now, each with very distinct merits and drawbacks. It could very well be that a significant contributing factor in why the online uptake has been small relative to installed console userbase are the drawbacks - Sony for not having a more cohesive, user-friendly approach and MS for being a closed network that requires a subscription fee just to keep playing any game online. A happy medium between two could potentially be the successful business model that Nintendo is waiting for - the flexibility and openness of PS2 Online tempered with some of basic matchmaking and UI standardization that XBL offers, married with free online play for basic peer-to-peer games, with the option to pay a subscription fee to gain access to more advanced community services and other premium services/content.

But, in the same vein as what DCharlie said earlier, the longer Nintendo waits, the more likely that Sony and MS will close the gap between their respective offerings and address their weaknesses, no longer leaving the middle ground free for someone else to exploit.