So, with the Modern Warfare 2 thing showing that PC gamers are going to be screwed over by A-titles from now on, or at least A-titles from Activison and Infinity Ward (that aren't WoW), us PC gamers have had the 'delight' of seeing what console gaming is like.
So, I have to ask, REALLY? You're content with this? A maximum of 9 vs 9, having the host be switched around left, right, and centre, having lag ampified because of the P2P connections...?
I mean, XBox live customers, you PAY for this stuff, so why is it that your service is worse than what the PC gamer IS getting 90% of the time? Why aren't you demanding a better service for your cash? Hell, why aren't 32 vs 32 games an option on XBox? Thats standard on PC.
I don't ask this to be 'elitist' like every other person on this website seems to think we PC gamers are, I'm asking because you're being given a poor service that you seem content with, even though there is a cheap, reliable fix for it (dedicated servers).
I mean, YOU are the ones who get to determine how good the service is you're paying for. PC gamers can't manage it anymore because we've been marginalized. So why aren't you demanding a better service? Especially on XBox Live where Microsoft don't have an excuse for not having them - i.e. you are paying a subscription charge for online play, so why don't they let some of that cash fund servers so you don't have to rely on laggy p2p networks?
The thing that some pc gamers and some console players don't get is that this depends on Point Of View. Console players get what they're used to so they're content.When pc gamers get what we're used to get (unlike the MW2) we're content too.
Now...When you look at console gamers you think they should be unhappy but that's only from your POV,not theirs. When they do the same,they think we ask for irrational things,again,they're wrong because that's from their POV.
It's really that simple.Console and pc gamers should try to see things from a different perspective.
First a maximum of 9 vs 9? Look at Frontlines Fuel of War. 26 x 26 mp and still the game didn't reach popularity (even though it was a good game). MAG with its projected 256 mp matches and people have reservations. You are blaming MS or Sony for a choice the developers are making. For me Ithink 9 x 9 is enough. With Frontlines you formed an 8 man squad. So even with the other 40 people running around I feel like I am playing with 8. And since the maps were big enough I didn't find myself fighting against more than a few at any given time. Most matches there would be tons of people who I never even saw on the battlefield.
And sure I have had some laggy matches. The system isn't perfect. Although those matches were few and far between and usually involved someone from the UK. most games allow you to see if thier ping is up to snuff and allow you to choose whether you should look for another match.
From where I am sitting XBL is constantly improving. Can't ask for much more than that.
I play everything on xbox. Not because I prefer it, but because my PC wont run anything beyond the Sims. My boyfriend is going to build me a PC fairly soon though, so I'm not exactly "settling."
Doug: So, with the Modern Warfare 2 thing showing that PC gamers are going to be screwed over by A-titles from now on, or at least A-titles from Activison and Infinity Ward (that aren't WoW), us PC gamers have had the 'delight' of seeing what console gaming is like.
So, I have to ask, REALLY? You're content with this? A maximum of 9 vs 9, having the host be switched around left, right, and centre, having lag ampified because of the P2P connections...?
I mean, XBox live customers, you PAY for this stuff, so why is it that your service is worse than what the PC gamer IS getting 90% of the time? Why aren't you demanding a better service for your cash? Hell, why aren't 32 vs 32 games an option on XBox? Thats standard on PC.
I don't ask this to be 'elitist' like every other person on this website seems to think we PC gamers are, I'm asking because you're being given a poor service that you seem content with, even though there is a cheap, reliable fix for it (dedicated servers).
I mean, YOU are the ones who get to determine how good the service is you're paying for. PC gamers can't manage it anymore because we've been marginalized. So why aren't you demanding a better service? Especially on XBox Live where Microsoft don't have an excuse for not having them - i.e. you are paying a subscription charge for online play, so why don't they let some of that cash fund servers so you don't have to rely on laggy p2p networks?
You ever try to convince a cult that the kool aid they are about to drink is actually lined with poison? Doesn't work there either.
Because unlike PC gamers, we're not greedy twats who want everything our way, all the time?
/stereotypical (but not completely untrue) response
1: Lag is not that bad on P2P, no matter how much antecdotal evidence is presented. As a matter of fact, lag is generally the same across both systems - its just that servers can handle it slightly better. Consoles however, use P2P more often for several reasons:
-It helps control modding, cheating and pirating -It is easier to use on consoles -It costs WAAAAAAAAAAAY less than servers do. Even the richest companies would be utterly crushed under the burden of trying to provide servers for games for consoles, which almost always have an expotenially higher user base than PC games do, which means an expotenially higher cost.
2: The maximum is not 9v9. There any many games that go far above this limit, like Frontlines and Section 8, not to mention the Battlefield games. However, 8v8/9v9 is generally the accepted good preformance limit of both the P2P, and what most developers design their game for. Games like CoD44, MW2, Halo 3, Gears etc. are simply not designed for that many players, both gameplay-wise and map-wise.
Also, 32v32 isn't standard on PC, save for Battlefield games. Many games you have to mod or tinker with get above 12v12 or 16v16.
3: Our services are not poor. For our $50 a year, XBL users get consistant and accurate stats-tracking across all games, large community events, reliable (fairly) customer service, maintance and anti-cheating protection, and pretty decent game content as well (much of it at a reduced price as compared to if it were a normal digital download or in-store purchase), and unlimited online gameplay for any game, with few exceptions (Phantasy Star Universe). All this for less than the price of one new game per year? Not even WoW can claim that. Pc gamers can't, because most of it is self-regulated - you might get it, but it relies on players to make it happen.
4: All I see are some butt-hurt PC gamers due to the fact that IW tried to level the playing field for all their customers. I didn't say it worked, but I can't blame them for trying either. Because when you strip away all the fluff and chest-thumping and yelling, PC doesn't really stand out well...in anything. and treating them like they're special is a poor business choice, especially since you stopped being profitable a long time ago.
I feel that 9 vs 9 is usually enough to make the maps on games such as MW2 feel full, so I'm fine with the match sizes as they are. P2P hosting doesn't seem to be that laggy at all in comparison to PC games I've played online (although my Internet provider is pretty unreliable, so maybe that's why)
On a side note, I understand that you're not an elitist and just asking us console gamers a question, but a topic title like this is asking for trouble.
Because console owners don't get involved, because they have been cut off by the publishers (Microsoft, Sony). A PC owner have control over her machine more so than a console owner. Just look on MW2, less than a week and someone makes dedicated servers despite IW's wishes. Impossible on consoles, more or less, or at least more of a hazzle. I play Battlefield 1943 on a regular basis and latency have been pretty good so far on my mediocre connection. So I'm not sure what the problem is there.
Personally, I almost never use my Xbox Live for multiplayer, as I got a PC for that. Where I play on my terms rather than some dev/publishers idea of "fun"(granted they provide services that help, but nothing stupid other than L4D/MW2 matchmaking, so far)
I was a Console tard, but now play on the PC, the OP is right. However from a console gamers perspective they feel good, I just think that it depends how serious you are.
squid5580: First a maximum of 9 vs 9? Look at Frontlines Fuel of War. 26 x 26 mp and still the game didn't reach popularity (even though it was a good game).
I would disagree with that (and yeah, I did buy it too).
MAG with its projected 256 mp matches and people have reservations.
Not released yet, so we'll see how it performs in real world conditions.
You are blaming MS or Sony for a choice the developers are making.
Possiblity. But why has this low count become the unofficial standard for console gaming?
For me I think 9 x 9 is enough. With Frontlines you formed an 8 man squad. So even with the other 40 people running around I feel like I am playing with 8. And since the maps were big enough I didn't find myself fighting against more than a few at any given time. Most matches there would be tons of people who I never even saw on the battlefield.
For you, 8/9 is enough. Why is everyone else denied a choice?
And sure I have had some laggy matches. The system isn't perfect. Although those matches were few and far between and usually involved someone from the UK. most games allow you to see if thier ping is up to snuff and allow you to choose whether you should look for another match.
From where I am sitting XBL is constantly improving. Can't ask for much more than that.
1) I'm from the UK. And as far as I'm aware, UK XBox live customers are paying customers too...? And UK PSN people have just as much right to be on their as the American's/Canada's. 2) Lag is ampified in a P2P system because everyone is connected 'horizionally', so to speak. In a server/client setup, 1 laggy connection will only affect 1 player. And because the host isn't a player, the game isn't potentially negatively affected when someone leaves.
I'm not bothered by Console matchmaking, the host doesn't change that often, and a lot of the time it's in between games any way. I also dislike games with large numbers of people on both sides, especially on maps the size of MW2 and other Call of Duty games, I think it'd be a nightmare.
Please could you make XBOX Live less laggy and give us better service, or I will be forced to take drastic measures, such as, um, an internet boycott.
Yeah, bet you're quaking in your boots now.
Yours sincerely,
XBOX live gamer 27, 345,980
Companies listen when you talk with your money. If you could convince a couple million other people to complain then they would have to take notice less they lose a giant chunk of revenue. One person cannot change much alone, but one person can initiate things. Never think your voice is inherently worthless simply because it is one of millions.
Please could you make XBOX Live less laggy and give us better service, or I will be forced to take drastic measures, such as, um, an internet boycott.
Yeah, bet you're quaking in your boots now.
Yours sincerely,
XBOX live gamer 27, 345,980
Companies listen when you talk with your money. If you could convince a couple million other people to complain then they would have to take notice less they lose a giant chunk of revenue. One person cannot change much alone, but one person can initiate things. Never think your voice is inherently worthless simply because it is one of millions.
I don't think enough people are bothered by it to complain. They don't know there's better systems out there.
If I didn't nerd it up on the Escapist every day I wouldn't even know what a dedicated server was.
I think it's because it's cheaper upfront to jsut get the console and as long as we get internet period we don't mind that much. I agree with the statement, I too am a console gamer and I find it strange to have to pay to use internet connection with an internet sevice I already pay for, and even then it isn't that great with it sticking lag up your arse much more often than computer gaming dous.
Please could you make XBOX Live less laggy and give us better service, or I will be forced to take drastic measures, such as, um, an internet boycott.
Yeah, bet you're quaking in your boots now.
Yours sincerely,
XBOX live gamer 27, 345,980
Companies listen when you talk with your money. If you could convince a couple million other people to complain then they would have to take notice less they lose a giant chunk of revenue. One person cannot change much alone, but one person can initiate things. Never think your voice is inherently worthless simply because it is one of millions.
I don't think enough people are bothered by it to complain. They don't know there's better systems out there.
If I didn't nerd it up on the Escapist every day I wouldn't even know what a dedicated server was.
That is where you come in. You can tell people. They tell other people. Soon enough you have enough people making a fuss that they have to take notice. If everyone just sits around and things "They are never going to notice just me complaining." They they won't for sure.
Me I don't actually care because I am not a fan of multi player, unless it is with friends. Even then not so often. I just don't have the time to play a game until I can get good enough to be at least a bit competitive with the people that live, eat, breath, and crap their favorite FPS of the day.
Please could you make XBOX Live less laggy and give us better service, or I will be forced to take drastic measures, such as, um, an internet boycott.
Yeah, bet you're quaking in your boots now.
Yours sincerely,
XBOX live gamer 27, 345,980
Companies listen when you talk with your money. If you could convince a couple million other people to complain then they would have to take notice less they lose a giant chunk of revenue. One person cannot change much alone, but one person can initiate things. Never think your voice is inherently worthless simply because it is one of millions.
I don't think enough people are bothered by it to complain. They don't know there's better systems out there.
If I didn't nerd it up on the Escapist every day I wouldn't even know what a dedicated server was.
That is where you come in. You can tell people. They tell other people. Soon enough you have enough people making a fuss that they have to take notice. If everyone just sits around and things "They are never going to notice just me complaining." They they won't for sure.
Me I don't actually care because I am not a fan of multi player, unless it is with friends. Even then not so often. I just don't have the time to play a game until I can get good enough to be at least a bit competitive with the people that live, eat, breath, and crap their favorite FPS of the day.
Honestly, if I wanted to spend that much time and effort convincing people to follow a cause, I would not pick video game servers.
I would say it's mainly because online gaming is relatively new to the console market. I mean, this generation is really the first one where it's been a main point of focus. Plus honestly I could care less if there's 16 people in a match or 32.
Also, I don't know what the fuck you're talking about with consoles lagging more. Granted, I have a really good connection, but really the only game I've seen lag on Xbox live (that isn't some game obviously made for single player with a tacked on multiplayer) is gears of war 2. As opposed to PC games where maybe the whole thing doesn't lag, but everyone with a bad connection does. Plus in PC games you have to open ports and go through all this shit just to start a match and play with your friends.
squid5580: First a maximum of 9 vs 9? Look at Frontlines Fuel of War. 26 x 26 mp and still the game didn't reach popularity (even though it was a good game).
I would disagree with that (and yeah, I did buy it too).
MAG with its projected 256 mp matches and people have reservations.
Not released yet, so we'll see how it performs in real world conditions.
You are blaming MS or Sony for a choice the developers are making.
Possiblity. But why has this low count become the unofficial standard for console gaming?
For me I think 9 x 9 is enough. With Frontlines you formed an 8 man squad. So even with the other 40 people running around I feel like I am playing with 8. And since the maps were big enough I didn't find myself fighting against more than a few at any given time. Most matches there would be tons of people who I never even saw on the battlefield.
For you, 8/9 is enough. Why is everyone else denied a choice?
And sure I have had some laggy matches. The system isn't perfect. Although those matches were few and far between and usually involved someone from the UK. most games allow you to see if thier ping is up to snuff and allow you to choose whether you should look for another match.
From where I am sitting XBL is constantly improving. Can't ask for much more than that.
1) I'm from the UK. And as far as I'm aware, UK XBox live customers are paying customers too...? And UK PSN people have just as much right to be on their as the American's/Canada's. 2) Lag is ampified in a P2P system because everyone is connected 'horizionally', so to speak. In a server/client setup, 1 laggy connection will only affect 1 player. And because the host isn't a player, the game isn't potentially negatively affected when someone leaves.
You ever try to convince a cult that the kool aid they are about to drink is actually lined with poison? Doesn't work there either.
Ah... I think I begin to see the problem now.
Umm lets see here.
1) Because they can't please everyone. If you aren't happy with 9X9 wait for a game that has more. They still don't owe you anything.
2) Yes UK players pay just like we do. It is just for some reason our connections just don't work well together. Not your fault. And I am not excusing it. It is a problem that should be fixed.
3) It is my money and last I checked I can spend it how I damn well please. If I wasn't happy with it I wouldn't pay for it. Just because you expect more doesn't mean we all do or have to.
Honestly, if I wanted to spend that much time and effort convincing people to follow a cause, I would not pick video game servers.
You would be surprised how little effort it takes to convince people to act on things when it is something they actually want.
But like I said, it will never bother me because I don't like multiplayer all that much.
We got off track anyway. I was just trying to tell you that you never want to settle with the idea that you can do nothing but accept the way things are going simply because you are one of millions.
Well my labtop is the only computer I have and it's only good for some RTS's I play at low graphic quality and now that I'm in college I don't have anywhere near the kind of money to get a grade 'A' PC.
In comparison with the PC there isn't quite as much to do. I mean look at Halo 3. I think forge is totally kick ass while PC players have been doing stuff like that to an even greater degree for years.
But the consoles give us everything we really need to have fun. Sure the options are much greater on a high-end PC but a console is just more practical. We still get great games and we still have fun playing them.
Doug: So, with the Modern Warfare 2 thing showing that PC gamers are going to be screwed over by A-titles from now on, or at least A-titles from Activison and Infinity Ward (that aren't WoW), us PC gamers have had the 'delight' of seeing what console gaming is like.
So, I have to ask, REALLY? You're content with this? A maximum of 9 vs 9, having the host be switched around left, right, and centre, having lag ampified because of the P2P connections...?
I mean, XBox live customers, you PAY for this stuff, so why is it that your service is worse than what the PC gamer IS getting 90% of the time? Why aren't you demanding a better service for your cash? Hell, why aren't 32 vs 32 games an option on XBox? Thats standard on PC.
I don't ask this to be 'elitist' like every other person on this website seems to think we PC gamers are, I'm asking because you're being given a poor service that you seem content with, even though there is a cheap, reliable fix for it (dedicated servers).
I mean, YOU are the ones who get to determine how good the service is you're paying for. PC gamers can't manage it anymore because we've been marginalized. So why aren't you demanding a better service? Especially on XBox Live where Microsoft don't have an excuse for not having them - i.e. you are paying a subscription charge for online play, so why don't they let some of that cash fund servers so you don't have to rely on laggy p2p networks?
This ain't the case with the PS3. It's 30 vs 30 on Resistance 2 and far more than 9 vs 9 in other exclusives, not to mention MAG. Mainly it's the multiplatform games which suffer the most for some reason e.g. the CoD series. I'm all for "If you pay for something, only demand the best", yet people still buy the Wii and 360, so what can I say really.
Paragon Fury: Because unlike PC gamers, we're not greedy twats who want everything our way, all the time?
4: All I see are some butt-hurt PC gamers due to the fact that IW tried to level the playing field for all their customers. I didn't say it worked, but I can't blame them for trying either.
MetaKnight19: Another question could be why do PC gamers expect so much? *flameshield up*
This, more or less, is something that really gets me in the whole PC/Console thing, particularly with the recent MW2 debacle. It reminds me of Moviebob about the new Star Trek. Here's a transcript:
"Back when the new Star Trek movie came out, a minority of critics including myself, had the audacity to point out that, compared to what's generally been expected of the franchise up to this point, it was poorly written and kind of stupid. [...] This earned us a metric ton of scorn in the form of lemmings quoting studio PR and Onion videos: "Dude, stop being such a Trekkie fanboy. You just want it to be boring stuff about aliens sitting around and talking and junk." In other words: It had somehow become completely unreasonable to expect that a science fiction film be both intelligent and exciting."
In the same way: it has now somehow become completely unreasonable for PC gamers to expect the same features PC games have been having for a decade out of a title that spent 200 million dollars on marketing alone.
Why do you PC gamers have to be constant trolls all the time and consider console players inferior and are easily pleased?
Even if console gamers do get the short end of the stick, if they are content and satisfied with what they are playing there is no problem. Lots of people love to play XBL and feel that they are getting their money's worth, so what is the problem?
Myself, I'm not really bothered. I play on a 360, and all i ask is that I get to play great games that work online, and I do. I don't need more than 9v9, if the maps have been properly designed it doesn't matter.
You speak the truth, but PSN is free and has dedicated servers on nearly all of the PS3 exclusives such as Killzone 2 with 32 players, MAG with 256 players, Resistance 2 with 64 players and just about everything else. I really laugh when people try to justify paying for Xbox live when PC gamers get an amazing experience for free and PS3 owners get a great experience for free, and they pay for laggy P2P servers, games full of kids, ads and a cluttered interface.
people are just plain wrong on the p2p shit, p2p will NEVER be as reliable as server hosts in America. Maybe in South Korea, and places with very very close knit network where pings hit about 20 or less. But in America, with our distance, and lack of fiber optics P2P will always have horrible hit reg. 150 ping across the country= shitty hit reg.
Mag is going to have 126-126. So i'm fine with that. Also it goes to size of map. You make a Map like in MGO and throw in 50 People its gonna be to much in one area. They could make it better but as it stands the formula works. Why try to fix something that ain't broken. As for us settling for so little i don't know about everyone else but im content with what i get and don't wanna seem like a whiny bitch so i won't complain lol.
Because I like my console. And I don't like my computer.
And no, I don't know why. Console gaming just feels natural to me nowadys, but when I play a game on the computer I feel a little out of my comfort zone.
MetaKnight19: Another question could be why do PC gamers expect so much? *flameshield up*
And, this. It's like a millionaire asking a beggar, "Why do you settle for such pathetic clothes?"
"Because I can't afford better ones, you poncy prick. Now gimmie some money."
Paragon Fury: Because unlike PC gamers, we're not greedy twats who want everything our way, all the time?
/stereotypical (but not completely untrue) response
1: Lag is not that bad on P2P, no matter how much antecdotal evidence is presented. As a matter of fact, lag is generally the same across both systems - its just that servers can handle it slightly better. Consoles however, use P2P more often for several reasons:
-It helps control modding, cheating and pirating -It is easier to use on consoles -It costs WAAAAAAAAAAAY less than servers do. Even the richest companies would be utterly crushed under the burden of trying to provide servers for games for consoles, which almost always have an expotenially higher user base than PC games do, which means an expotenially higher cost.
2: The maximum is not 9v9. There any many games that go far above this limit, like Frontlines and Section 8, not to mention the Battlefield games. However, 8v8/9v9 is generally the accepted good preformance limit of both the P2P, and what most developers design their game for. Games like CoD44, MW2, Halo 3, Gears etc. are simply not designed for that many players, both gameplay-wise and map-wise.
Also, 32v32 isn't standard on PC, save for Battlefield games. Many games you have to mod or tinker with get above 12v12 or 16v16.
3: Our services are not poor. For our $50 a year, XBL users get consistant and accurate stats-tracking across all games, large community events, reliable (fairly) customer service, maintance and anti-cheating protection, and pretty decent game content as well (much of it at a reduced price as compared to if it were a normal digital download or in-store purchase), and unlimited online gameplay for any game, with few exceptions (Phantasy Star Universe). All this for less than the price of one new game per year? Not even WoW can claim that. Pc gamers can't, because most of it is self-regulated - you might get it, but it relies on players to make it happen.
4: All I see are some butt-hurt PC gamers due to the fact that IW tried to level the playing field for all their customers. I didn't say it worked, but I can't blame them for trying either. Because when you strip away all the fluff and chest-thumping and yelling, PC doesn't really stand out well...in anything. and treating them like they're special is a poor business choice, especially since you stopped being profitable a long time ago.
Nice start off with an insult.
1:You do not live in a country bad internet do you i cant play a P2P game online with out getting lag console or PC and i almost never get lag on severs unlike P2P.
-It helps control modding (why would you want to do that), cheating and pirating. (no it does not do you research and how does it control pirating hint it does not any more than severs) -It is easier to use on consoles. (But not on PC) -It costs WAAAAAAAAAAAY less than servers do. Even the richest companies would be utterly crushed under the burden of trying to provide servers for games for consoles, which almost always have an expotenially higher user base than PC games do, which means an expotenially higher cost.(XBox live customers pay for online so Microsoft should pay for the severs not the companies)
2:You do know Section 8 has severs on the Xbox right.
3:Steam has all that and it free, free to play online, free stats-tracking across all games, free large community events, free (fairly) reliable customer service, maintance and anti-cheating protection. (And pretty decent game content as well same much of it at a reduced price as compared to if it were a normal digital download or in-store purchase) wait what normal digital download for the Xbox or PS3 you can only get Xbox stuff from Xbox live and PS3 from playstation online so what reduced price are you talking about for normal digital downloads
4:What level playing playing field for all their customers buy giving the host 0 ping. I can blame them for trying this is not the first time some company has tried this it did not work for them why would it work for IW. (Treating them like they're special is a poor business choice, especially since you stopped being profitable a long time ago) Realy why do companies port there game to PC then and why are valve still around do you remember 2008 all these games came out for the 360 and PS3 and not PC and then 6 to 12 months most of them got PC ports like magic what about Battlefield: Bad Company no PC port for the first one but now the second Battlefield: Bad Company 2 is comeing out on the PC i think they did not get as much money as they hoped for the first one on the 360 and PS3 there is money on the PC because NORTH AMERICAN RETAIL (note that is were get the stats that PC is dying and fail to add digital downloads to the total or you know the rest of the world) is not were most PC gamers get there games
As someone who games on a PC and ps3, I have to agree with the OP's overall sentiment but his details are a little sketchy.
When I was shopping for a console, the only choices we had were between a really expensive console with really expensive hardware that I would've thought superfluous if I didn't have an hdtv, or another really expensive console that had a better selection of games but bricked half the time and would end up being just as expensive if I wanted to take it online. Great choices right? If I didn't have an hdtv, I probably wouldn't have gotten either but we did kind of want a br player so we went with the more expensive one.
However a good gaming PC would cost more than both those consoles combined. So when you consider that, I can't really blame someone for sticking with a console. But I do agree that console gamers put up with way more than they should: crappy hardware and big IPs going unsupported leaves a lot of them saying wtf.
Then again we're talking about the same group of consumer that made Gamestop rich so, what do you expect.
So, with the Modern Warfare 2 thing showing that PC gamers are going to be screwed over by A-titles from now on, or at least A-titles from Activison and Infinity Ward (that aren't WoW), us PC gamers have had the 'delight' of seeing what console gaming is like.
So, I have to ask, REALLY? You're content with this? A maximum of 9 vs 9, having the host be switched around left, right, and centre, having lag ampified because of the P2P connections...?
I mean, XBox live customers, you PAY for this stuff, so why is it that your service is worse than what the PC gamer IS getting 90% of the time? Why aren't you demanding a better service for your cash? Hell, why aren't 32 vs 32 games an option on XBox? Thats standard on PC.
I don't ask this to be 'elitist' like every other person on this website seems to think we PC gamers are, I'm asking because you're being given a poor service that you seem content with, even though there is a cheap, reliable fix for it (dedicated servers).
I mean, YOU are the ones who get to determine how good the service is you're paying for. PC gamers can't manage it anymore because we've been marginalized. So why aren't you demanding a better service? Especially on XBox Live where Microsoft don't have an excuse for not having them - i.e. you are paying a subscription charge for online play, so why don't they let some of that cash fund servers so you don't have to rely on laggy p2p networks?