Support NeoGAF

[Dr_Cogent]

Can you enlighten us more? Still find it hard that someone's X360 is hosting a game. Especially, PGR3 when you could have thousands of people watching are particle LIVE race.

Halo 2, for instance, uses a client/server model in which one of the players is the server and the rest are the clients. Their network code determines who has the best overall connection to serve all of the clients, and their machine is set to be the server. The person who created the game isn't necessarily the server either. Once the server disconnects, their network code determines the next best machine, and switches the duties over to it.

Regarding PGR3, I doubt what you are watching is all that LIVE. It's delayed I am sure. I would bet its uploaded at the end of the entire race, or at least being streamed by a particular client to their servers for delayed broadcast. Luckily for them, the data sizes for races is fairly small. (looks like I was beaten by gofreak

How their model works exactly, I am not sure, but MS can't afford to support servers for every single game that is made out there. I highly doubt their model would be profitable as a result if they did.

Also, they would have to have servers running all over the country/world in order to facilitate such a thing. If you notice when you are playing online, many of the players with good connections to the game are close to each other globally speaking. It's the nature of networking. The farther you are from the server, the more hops needed to get to it over the network - hence your latency increases.

I doubt MS is running servers for any particular game at all. I am fairly certain I have read in the past that they aren't. It just wouldn't make sense technically speaking and monetarily speaking.

 

[DarienA]

I'm not sure if Darien was claiming that though. I think he was just talking about the game specific playing code between clients.

Yes this is what I'm claiming(with no degree of certainty)... if anything XBL looks to me to be a hybrid where they actual game code portion is being done between clients(X360 consoles, with one being the host) but there is always a separate server connect to MS servers(regardless of who is actually hosting those), for the community functionality, achievements, etc.

 

[Dr_Cogent]

Yes this is what I'm claiming(with no degree of certainty)... if anything XBL looks to me to be a hybrid where they actual game code portion is being done between clients(X360 consoles, with one being the host) but there is always a separate server connect to MS servers(regardless of who is actually hosting those), for the community functionality, achievements, etc.

Yep. That is how I have come to understand their model from reading over the years.

 

[myzhi]

The spectator stuff could be handled by MS while the game itself is hosted by a player. It'd just be a stream of events passed up to the server before being propagated out to spectators (it'd be a small small amount of data between the host and the server, and then out to each spectator - they'd take those incoming events, and then the engine would render it all locally on each end).

OK. If a player host and he/she crash / disconnect, wouldn't everyone get booted? I have only played DOA4 and PGR3. Haven't had this happen yet.


Edit. NM. Answer in previous post by Cogent.

 

[Stink]

For spectator games, the Live servers (which do not host games) simply act as a repeater. They are the backbone for the data communication between different ISPs, so they already have the datastream.

 

[jett]

after xbl, i do not want to go back to not having everyone under one unique system, having to coordinate games via MSN or whatever.

Whether it's worth it or not is up to the individual - all i know is that if i boot up my x360, i can look and see which of my friends are playing what and move from there.

Sounds like you're paying for XMSN. I still think it's bullshit and an absolute ripoff.

 

[Dr_Cogent]

OK. If a player host and he/she crash / disconnect, wouldn't everyone get booted? I have only played DOA4 and PGR3. Haven't had this happen yet.


Edit. NM. Answer in previous post by Cogent.

DOA may be peer to peer. In this networking case, clients can drop off without affecting anyone else. I'm not sure how DOA works exactly, but there are ways around losing players without hosing everyone else. In fact, DOA may be a mix of both.

This is why the Command and Conquer games were peer to peer. Anyone could drop out at any time without affecting the game play at all.

 

[User 406]

1. Peer to peer means peer to peer. Client/Server means client/server. One doesn't mean the other. Words mean things.

2. There are plenty of games that use peer to peer networking in them. All of the Command and Conquer games used it. Even Generals used it.

You are wrong on both counts IMO.

If there are indeed modern games out there that use a genuine peer to peer topology then I'm shocked, since I had thought that method had been abandoned ages ago for exactly the reasons you stated previously about bandwidth issues. A textbook peer to peer setup makes no sense for online gaming for more than a couple players. So pretty much since usenet, every online gaming discussion I can recall reading or been involved in has used the term "peer to peer" as a shorthand to differentiate client/server handled entirely between player machines from a dedicated server setup. In essence, the word "peer" in this case is referring to the players, and since all the client/server communication is between "peers", that's how the term got adopted in that context. Words do mean things, but language usage changes over time and in different contexts.

Regardless, this is still just obfuscating the issue that online gaming implemented without dedicated servers on the game company's end has always been free, and there's no reason why it should suddenly merit a subscription fee. NO SUBSCRIPTION FEE, SONY, DO YOU HEAR ME!?

 

[dorio]

Dorio, the context of that quote was that RSX isnt so much exotic as it is "evolutionary". Which is pretty vague in its own right to be fair, but that particular phrase may lead one to think it isnt just a straight G70 derivative either.

Do you have a link to this conversation? Thanks in advance.

 

[Doom_Bringer]

Do you have a link to this conversation? Thanks in advance.

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27884

 

[SolidSnakex]

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27884

I guess that finally shows that RSX has improved. So the speculation now moves onto what have they improved.

 

[Doom_Bringer]

I guess that finally shows that RSX has improved. So the speculation now moves onto what have they improved.

Some people are saying that its a G71 instead of a G70 with some nifty features. Everything the nvidia dude said at E3 is still there but some other stuff has improved. No one has any idea of what that stuff is. RSX finally tapped out in January 2006? I hope so

From IGN

"...so just like Geeforce 6, we had a variety of products, well, we have the 7800 GTX and then the next, future generation of this technology will be the RSX, so kinda what, what we characterise as the parent technology is this second generation shader model 3 engine. And it can be extentiated in a variety of ways, and in the case of the RSX, we have a many pipeline chip which would be directly coupled to the CELL processor..."

 

[LAMBO]

That's what I'm talking about, your old, dead PS2 being your PlayStation gameplay server instead of buying a whole new PS3 or even PC. ]Star Wars Battlefront PS2 allows you to set up a PC to play PS2 games online (never tried it, but it's got to help.) If the PS2 were used as your server, you'd probably have to have an extra monitor or TV switcher to handle it unless it could USB out to an in-game sub-menu on PS3 (or maybe the same USB, connecting to a PSP?), but that wouldn't be much more complicated to manage than it already would be with a PC server.

That would be cool, but the ps2 is just too weak. From my experience your server has to be as least strong enough to run the game.

 

[gofreak]

I guess that finally shows that RSX has improved. So the speculation now moves onto what have they improved.

I've a feeling most improvements are at a pretty low level that mean more to developers and wouldn't be so easily appreciable to the casual eye.

As for the nVidia comment, and others floating around, about RSX being "later tech" or G70 being the "parent tech", I don't think it necessarily means it's based on G71. I think it's probably a PS3 specific refresh, in the same way G71 is a PC-based refresh - both derived out of G70 to one degree or another.

 

[CamHostage]

do we know it was sonys fault that never happened? maybe it was aol who pulled out in the last minute

Long before AOL jumped onboard, long before the PS2 was released even, Sony was hyping their all engrossing network, a network where you could remotely order your PS2 to download a movie from the internet and start watching oit as soon as you got home, pause the movie and use the movies assets inside a game you had downloaded onto your PS2.

AOL had nothing to do with those claims, with Sony´s ambitious claims which were only designed to break hype for Dreamcasts network capabilities.

They talked about doing it, yes. And they they started building the mechanics to do it. And their plan, at least in America, involved AOL. And also a number of other partners. And then the dotcom crash came in the middle of it all, and those partnerships became troubled, eventually resulting in nothing.

It may not necessarily be AOL's fault that you can't get on-demand on PS2, but if you look at the big picture and the timeline, you'd get the impression that what Sony had at the time was the dreams and plans of an Xbox Live, not just some Dreamcast killer (that honestly didn't take much...) What they didn't have was the complete concept that MS had, the drive to make it core to the console, probably the money or resources to dedicate solely to it. MS did what Sony couldn't, not what Sony hadn't thought of or didn't try to do.

Peer to Peer my ass. You guys don't even know what the fuck you are talking about. The Xbox Live infrastructure isn't peer to peer. It's client/server. You login to the server, messages are passed to and from the server. It's not fucking peer to peer....Do you actually think that the entire Xbox Live model is based on peer to peer. Do you actually understand networking technologies? If it was peer to peer - the entire system wouldn't work or if it did - it would perform like absolute shit.

Online gameplay itself depends on the game. They aren't all peer to peer. Network traffic grows exponentially as clients join a game in a peer to peer model. Halo is most certainly not peer to peer, it is client/server.

But is it doing something that should cost $50 a year? Looking at the services I use for free every day on the web, I've got to wonder..

And that's the question. The point being made is that XBL charges for a lot of things that are given away free elsewhere (SOCOM is still the biggest online game going, I get 2GBs of email on gmail, AIM lets me keep a friends list and even voice chat with them, online rankings is built into most every PC game and is a standard feature in services like GameSpy...) So, is it not possible that Sony's service, like Nintendo's, could be monetized as enough value to SCE to be free admission if they can, like Xbox Live, pick up on the backend?

I see it a little like a magazine and an online site. Xbox Live is a great service that costs a lot to run and design and is well worth the money, but I can also get much of that elsewhere for free, maybe with some drawbacks and maybe with not as nice a package, but my attendence is my payment instead of the other way around. I don't feel ripped off for pay-subscribing to Xbox Live, but I wouldn't if I didn't have to, and doing the math, I could see a day when it'd be free, or a competitor could offer a similar service for free.

 

[CamHostage]

That's what I'm talking about, your old, dead PS2 being your PlayStation gameplay server instead of buying a whole new PS3 or even PC. ]Star Wars Battlefront PS2 allows you to set up a PC to play PS2 games online (never tried it, but it's got to help.) If the PS2 were used as your server, you'd probably have to have an extra monitor or TV switcher to handle it unless it could USB out to an in-game sub-menu on PS3 (or maybe the same USB, connecting to a PSP?), but that wouldn't be much more complicated to manage than it already would be with a PC server.

That would be cool, but the ps2 is just too weak. From my experience your server has to be as least strong enough to run the game.

Bummer. I thought all a server did was crunch net code/variables, run the error checking, make sure everybody's getting passed everything, computer stuff like that. But next-gen is next-gen levels of math to think, so that'd make sense.

 

[gofreak]

Sorry for the bump, but the dude who originally posted this stuff has posted more from the same article. The main points are:

- SCEA is apparently focussed entirely on PS3 at the moment - PSP is on a sort of "auto pilot" for the short term

- A dev quoted got final kits in early January, and "it's even faster than we were expecting" (note that even if true, it doesn't necessarily mean an explicit spec upgrade..)

- PS3 will apparently have DVR functionality (although their "source" doesn't know how video will get into the system, but movie and tv show downloads are a cert at least)

- Media streaming over home networks to PS3 will be possible

- PSP will be able to browse media from anywhere in the world (as Sony already suggested), but also send data back to your PS3. An example given is taking the mem stick from your digital camera when on your travels, and sticking it in your PSP to send your photos back to your PS3 at home.

Take with a big grain of salt, of course. Though much of that is really far out - though DVR functionality I'm quite sceptical of, as they even acknowledge, there's no obvious video-in capability.

(Credit to Kb-Smoker at PSINext)

 

[RaijinFY]

Hm what's DVR functionality?

 

[gofreak]

Hm what's DVR functionality?

Digital Video Recording. Like Tivo, PVR, basically. It'd be sweet, and I'm sure they were thinking about it, given PSX also - but I'm not sure how it'd work, there's no video-in in the spec Sony has announced. Downloadable shows etc. I guess would be the next best thing.

 

[xexex]

I guess that finally shows that RSX has improved. So the speculation now moves onto what have they improved.

there is no evidence that RSX is significantly different from G70, other than the optimizations to work effectively with Cell, and cutting out the PC-specific stuff that isnt needed in a console.

 

[RaijinFY]

there is no evidence that RSX is significantly different from G70

Yeah and he didnt say that.

 

[LAMBO]

I also wonder how the 350 or the ps3 could be a dvr without a video input. Anyone have ideas?

 

[Defensor]

I also wonder how the 350 or the ps3 could be a dvr without a video input. Anyone have ideas?

USB2.0?

 

[LAMBO]

So you think it just might be as simple as a special cable?

 

[CamHostage]

I also wonder how the 350 or the ps3 could be a dvr without a video input. Anyone have ideas?

My idea for Sony releasing a HDD and achieving saturation would be them releasing it as a full DVR unit ... it's a little dashed since the PS3 has that odd 2.5" bay (although where is the bay? And is it PCMCI like on PS2? It could still be an all-in-one plug), but it would be part of the drive itself, either an endpiece of the 2.5" slot plug or an independent USB 2.0 drive set on the side like the Multitap (only nice-looking). That, or it could be its own separate piece alongside the HDD in the box, although that's not as sexy a concept. Either way, you use the idea of selling a TIVO to people as a way to get peripheral penetration to mass-market levels so you can rely on it for games (unlike Xbox 360, where the main reason for casual gamers to buy a HDD is to stop the Tardo Pack suferring.) Selling a HDD and a DV input device seems bad form.

 

[Argyle]

If there are indeed modern games out there that use a genuine peer to peer topology then I'm shocked, since I had thought that method had been abandoned ages ago for exactly the reasons you stated previously about bandwidth issues. A textbook peer to peer setup makes no sense for online gaming for more than a couple players. So pretty much since usenet, every online gaming discussion I can recall reading or been involved in has used the term "peer to peer" as a shorthand to differentiate client/server handled entirely between player machines from a dedicated server setup. In essence, the word "peer" in this case is referring to the players, and since all the client/server communication is between "peers", that's how the term got adopted in that context. Words do mean things, but language usage changes over time and in different contexts.

One Xbox Live game that I am pretty sure had a peer to peer topology (as in synchronous netcode) was Steel Batallion Line of Contact.

That's why hardly anyone in the US could play it - at the time it was launched, very few people had the upstream bandwidth to play in a 6 player (the maximum allowed) game...I think you needed better than 512kbits up. The problem is that even if you did have the bandwidth, EVERYONE had to have the bandwidth, or your game would lag out and basically be unplayable. The odds of finding 5 other people in the US with that kind of connection at that time was pretty low. (Keep in mind - at the time the average DSL package was probably 1500kbit down/128kbit up or at best 1500kbit down/384kbit up)

I guess the Japanese developers got lazy cause a lot of people there had fiber optic connections, or really fast DSL or something.

 

[DCharlie]

I also wonder how the 350 or the ps3 could be a dvr without a video input. Anyone have ideas?

What if sony distribute tv to you via the internet, not via coax/satellite?

 

[Ponn]

I'm not buying the DVR or Location Free shit for a minute. That is such an extra cost and an unneccesary edition to the PS3 when they already sell the Location free for 300 or 400 bucks. It may work with the Location Free in tandem through WiFi but no way in hell built in. This news is getting out of control.