bf3 or mw3

[jazzy]

...what? lol How is having plenty of servers to choose from a bad thing, and really if it makes the game more money than a 15 dollar a month p2p would do? Since they can charge monthly depending on slots and stuff. Not to mention it gives third party game server providers profit as well.

because in layman's terms it's wasted space. what's the point in hosting a 24 player server that's empty 90% of the time as compared to a p2p game that starts off when you want it, and ends when you're all done. it's that simple. also dedicated servers take time and money to maintain, p2p servers are on the go, good to go. ill admit you lose a lot of server administration and the ability to be more customized.

 

Also LoL is a MMORPG, not a FPS. Don't ever, EVER try to put the two in the same league. It's completely two different markets with different gameplay and services. FPS's content compared to a p2p MMORPG is so small that it wouldn't be worth p2p unless we got monthly-bimonthly DLC. Which I would be surprised in a FPS for not only doing, but not charging extra to obtain.

LoL is a MOBA, a Multiplayer Online Battle Arena. Saying it's an MMO is like saying MW2 is a MMOFPS because they both have unlocks.

Seems pointless to argue this since no FPS has tried this successfully as of yet, and since you are trying to use MMORPG p2p games as examples. lol If someone did make it work, it would be interesting to see but I personally don't think it would be a good idea. Then again, thats just my opinion I suppose.

 

IIRC MW2 uses P2P, MW3 will, and a good portion of Xbox Live games just might use it (though apparently it's debated a lot. which i have no idea why since microsoft could just give a fucking yes/no answer)

 

though bringing up p2p as an alternative way to playing online is considered taboo among pc gamers i guess

[RaDiuM]

bf3

 

mw3 is for faggots

[Drox]

because in layman's terms it's wasted space. what's the point in hosting a 24 player server that's empty 90% of the time as compared to a p2p game that starts off when you want it, and ends when you're all done. it's that simple. also dedicated servers take time and money to maintain, p2p servers are on the go, good to go. ill admit you lose a lot of server administration and the ability to be more customized.

 

I don't see how p2p matters in how they handle the servers, they're even f2p games like world of tanks that don't even allow you to choose who you get to play with unless you pay gold. So a FPS doesn't have to be p2p to do this with their servers. lol

 

 

LoL is a MOBA, a Multiplayer Online Battle Arena. Saying it's an MMO is like saying MW2 is a MMOFPS because they both have unlocks.

 

Technically you would call it that, but we usually just call it MMO's and FPS's, while not adding RPG, MMOFPS ect. Since any online game can be considered a MMO of some kind of genre.

 

 

IIRC MW2 uses P2P, MW3 will, and a good portion of Xbox Live games just might use it (though apparently it's debated a lot. which i have no idea why since microsoft could just give a fucking yes/no answer)

 

though bringing up p2p as an alternative way to playing online is considered taboo among pc gamers i guess

 

Yes because MW2 is such a great catalyst for doing something like this, because we all know that game didn't blow. lol Xboxlive hasn't done it yet because they already make their users pay monthly just to use their service. It would be like asking them to please go out and buy a PS3 even though they suck at protecting ure account. But atleast you wouldn't have to pay 2 different subs just to play online. lol

 

I wouldn't say it's taboo, if anything PC gamers would be more willing to do a p2p game than console gamers. It's that PC gamers aren't idiots, if we are doing p2p then we better be getting every buck worth out of the game by loads of content. Which I just don't think any upcoming FPS can really deliver without their devs only focusing on that game (Which they usually don't do lol).

[Maniac]

BF3 in general will rape cod. But competitive wise cod takes it

[Metal]

BF3 in general will rape cod. But competitive wise cod takes it

 

Depends on the type.

 

Also E3 on monday for mp gameplay

[Guest harro]

P2P is fine and all, but P2P as the only option is retarded. If I want to create my own server, and have every single player in a goddamn Telletubby/Spongebob suit, I should have the goddamn freedom to do so.

 

*Btw did you not see the PC gamer outrage when MW2 was released w/ p2p only?

 

Another Edit* P2P is only really great if you don't expect your game to have a long life span. Compare CS:S to COD.

 

COD gets a sequel every year, so obviously, there's going to be less mods, less map releases, pretty much less player related content, because players will switch over once the new COD is released. So some server owners don't want to keep up a server for COD if they're going to have to switch over to the new COD in a year to keep their playerbase. It's too much of a hassle.

 

CS:S on the other hand, has been around since forever. Your server options for game modes, content, etc. are pretty huge, and would be bottlenecked if you had a forced p2p service. Game is going to be around for a while, so it's worth the effort to build and maintain a server.

[Stevee]

Battlefield 3 as always!