![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
One of the more annoying things I've found in Xbox Live is the large amount of waiting to get started relative to the PC multiplayer experience which displays a large list of servers to choose from and drop directly into.
One of the reasons this is possible is that people are more willing to create or fund long-term dedicated servers out of their own pocket, for example, Steam games or BF2. Both Steam and EA's player matching works through central master servers like Xbox Live. But on Steam and EA, the servers aren't single players starting a fresh empty server for temporary play before taking the server down. The majority of servers there are dedicated, and they don't have to be paid for by Steam or EA either.
With a dedicated server, the game stays up, and is constantly populated with a continuing flow of people. Some drop out, others hop in, but the server stays populated since it doesn't have to worry about a host leaving and emptying everybody out.
Who has the host advantage? This problem is still there, because the host can still be connecting to his dedicated server on his own network and have a similar effect. But the host won't always be there, more likely, the vast majority of the time, the owner of a dedicated server isn't playing. It's all clients playing against clients.
More powerful servers. There are a few games that allow for dedicated servers on the Xbox360, but people are less likely to have spare Xbox360s that they'll want to run a 24/7 server with. And even then, it's still just an Xbox360. The hardware is designed for playing games, and does it very well, but it's not designed for hosting them. With PCs available the server won't have to be hosted off somebody's Xbox360. 64-player BF2? Not all games have to be 64-player of course, I'm just noting that possibilities are opened up when the server has some extra "oomph" to spare.
Perhaps with the cross-platform gaming, we may see developers releasing dedicated server software for PCs that Xbox360 users can share in.
One of the reasons this is possible is that people are more willing to create or fund long-term dedicated servers out of their own pocket, for example, Steam games or BF2. Both Steam and EA's player matching works through central master servers like Xbox Live. But on Steam and EA, the servers aren't single players starting a fresh empty server for temporary play before taking the server down. The majority of servers there are dedicated, and they don't have to be paid for by Steam or EA either.
With a dedicated server, the game stays up, and is constantly populated with a continuing flow of people. Some drop out, others hop in, but the server stays populated since it doesn't have to worry about a host leaving and emptying everybody out.
Who has the host advantage? This problem is still there, because the host can still be connecting to his dedicated server on his own network and have a similar effect. But the host won't always be there, more likely, the vast majority of the time, the owner of a dedicated server isn't playing. It's all clients playing against clients.
More powerful servers. There are a few games that allow for dedicated servers on the Xbox360, but people are less likely to have spare Xbox360s that they'll want to run a 24/7 server with. And even then, it's still just an Xbox360. The hardware is designed for playing games, and does it very well, but it's not designed for hosting them. With PCs available the server won't have to be hosted off somebody's Xbox360. 64-player BF2? Not all games have to be 64-player of course, I'm just noting that possibilities are opened up when the server has some extra "oomph" to spare.
Perhaps with the cross-platform gaming, we may see developers releasing dedicated server software for PCs that Xbox360 users can share in.