Possible VF5r console Info?

I can't say I have tried that many games for PS3, but the few that I tried I only enjoyed the Ridge Racer online experience, well I guess I enjoy Mortal Kombat 2 as well. I have only played 5 games to date with online capabilities. The 2 I just mentioned plus Warhawk(which I owe), Burnout Paradise(at a friend's place) and Tekken 5R(which I owe as well). Overall I was not impressed by what these games had to offer. I'll admit my old Earthlink internet connection was not the best, but even when I played Burnout Paradise on my 360 I didn't experience any lag or random hiccups like I did on PS3. T5 was like playing in Jello right after the download yet VF5 was awesome right out of the box, so it's hard for me to say if it was my internet connection. I'm not trying to diss PSN completely as I think PS3 has the potential to own all. But like I said, VF on 360 has been tried and proven, so it's only natural that I would want to ensure the same results or pray to the gods that it shows up on 360. The experience can't get any worse. It can hopefully only get better. I am prepared either way, but if their is a simultaneous release I going with the 360 until I play test the PS3 version myself to be convinced it's better. If it is i'll gladly buy a copy as owning multiple copies of VF is second nature for us hardcore fans.

 

Asside from the stat tracking fiasco in Warhawk, I've had 0 issues with it.

 

It has to do with the netcode for the game, not the system itself. If sega programs the online similarly as they did for 360 there should be no issues.

 

lag was not that bad in battle fantaisa for ps3 when you play u.s. players.If you could find any lol.

 

lets see games i play online for ps3 NFS prostreet, GRAW2, Rb6v2, GH3, COD4, high stakes poker, MSG4 and madden 08.i really have no problem with the internet connections or servers, btw i suck at these games online LOL

 

Here's why it should be on 360..WCG return and perhaps even CGS

 

If Ya don't have more 3 games on your PS3 that are MP. Don't make a comment about games from 06. I own various titles on the PS3 that are MP(COD4, MGO, Warhawk,R:FOM, NBA 2K8, MLB The Show 2K8, Stranglehold and RR7)Blahzie, what titles do you own that run sooooo "Shitty"on the PS3? Because is know FACT, Dedicated Servers>P2P. Good example, Host advantage in Gears and a few other games on LIVE.

So bringing up titles like MK2(Like Konjou stated)while using a earthlink connection, and NOT owning any other MP game that was coded right, doesn't hold ANY weight compare to others who has stated other wise, AND actually own more then 5 titles. So please, don't make a assumption over the service due to a bad experience. Is like me saying XBL sucks because I experience a shitload of lag the first week Gears Of War cameout, then I go play Street Fighter II HF on XBLA(Know to have lag)get lag again, and from there I make the assumption the service is wack as a whole, due to bad Netcoding. When that's not the case.

 

All i can say is psn is pretty solid with no lag when using great internet connection(currently using cox high speed internet with powerboost) the dedicated servers r reliable and easy to navigate. search ur opponent check their connection and its good to go in games like rb6v2, and gh3. COD4 got a great public matchmaking server.

 

Please back up your KNOWN facts with links that shows this being true for 1 on 1 games. Cause as KoD mentioned earlier, p2p will always be faster than dedicated server in a 1on1 game. Now THAT'S a fact!

 

Fact checkers cry the world 'round...

 

Nobody is showing facts here because its not easy to compare the two since we are talking about the xbox and not the traditional manner in which the network types are used. In regards to VF being server based rather then p2p, I don't think its possible, its not the type of game that can support that. Secondly there are in fact servers running, that whole XBL thing going on, its not a giant bubble of interweb you talk to. The servers allow us to log in and then create and host games.

From an IT standpoint its hard to argue one is better then the other. P2P has its issues, such as connection speeds and lack of performance and system maintenance. Servers however get this and could get better as time goes on rather then remain stagnant. There is also more control with a dedicated server, though no normal user would have those rights so why would we care? When it comes to lag its a known fact when P2P is being used there is a zero ping on the host to himself (host advantage), a dedicated server gives both users at least a 30ms ping or more. So if you want a fair match dedicated servers would be the way to go, if you want at least one person to have minimal lag issues then p2p is the way to go.

What I believe is the reasoning for not using a dedicated server for games to be played is not only because of the obvious hurdles for a 1v1 fighting games but the fact that it would be a waste of money. Why have a sever that can hold 100+ users yet each game is a simple 1v1. 'm not even talking about the new code and modules that would need to be built, $$$$. A server having to manage thousands of packets of data back and forth would be extremely costly and even more so with the addition of more servers to handle the bandwidth.

So basically here is how it would work with dedicated servers...

You have ONE server host many games, letting each user join. This causes major bandwidth issues and puts a cap on players within the server. The ONE server has obvious performance issues so they add more servers. This helps but as time goes on they lose players, servers become ghost towns. Performance and system maintenance becomes expensive and unnecessary. Again I am not even including the amount of work that would be required to make the game work on a system like that.

P2P is better for VF, hands down.

A nice comparison of the two server types on the PS3 and Xbox.
http://www.gamespot.com/users/Some_One_Plays/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=m-100-25341542&print=1

 

I know I went UBER off topic with thread. But, yesterday was like "Let's bash on PSN" day. That's how it felt yesterday over here(SC IV thread and this one)I've NEVER stated dedicated servers were better then P2P when it comes to fighting games. I'm talking about PSN as a whole over LIVE. First party titles are on dedicated servers while 3rd party has the option to either or, use P2P or Dedicated servers. PSN is not shitty as some make it out to be. PSN has the option, but LIVE refuses to apply that model more frequently.

 

as a multi-console owner, I prefer having this on the PS3 for a multitude of reasons.
-friendlier for finding the right stick, adapter, pad for you. More choices
-no disk scratch errors
-and other things

 

yea, how does that ps3 trophies thing work anyway?

 

I want it on BOTH consoles.

reason for having it on xbox:
- possible return of WCG VF tourney
- ok online

reasons for having it on ps3:
- everything else

 

i want both with the same features to grow the scene.

I will also buy both **

 

Hope it's not true.If it is,screw Sega!I'm sticking with xbox.

 

Hmmm just sold my PS3 as it was utterly terrible as a games machine. I have decided to stay single format this gen and the only reason I bought a PS3 was for VF5 and the superior 360 version came out and made my PS3 redundant.

I hope it is multi format but if not I still have VF5 so meh.

Edit: Thinking about it, the PS3 version is a closed version in terms of DLC etc right? So a disc exclusive it may be but 360 is open for DLC and SEGA have supported PSU with substantial DLC as DLC only so Virtua Fighter 5 R could be done as DLC on 360 with PS3 getting a disc exclusive and to me that would make much more sense. Having an exclusive in this day and age with such a niche game is sales sucicide.[/size]

 

Thanks for the info, Laa.

 

Anybody have links to the PS3->Ps2 adapter?

I'm limited on the curent comp. I'm on. If this is true(doubt it) I'm gonna trade in my 360.