Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Halo 2 Effect Threatens Broadband

Zonk posted more than 9 years ago | from the that's-a-lot-of-fragging dept.

First Person Shooters (Games) 78

darkstar949 writes "There is an article on CNET News.com that reports the so called 'Halo 2' effect is threatening broadband users. Because of this some ISPs are being pressured for more reliability and low latency. Perhaps this marks a new trend for the internet as online gaming becomes more popular." From the article: "Sandvine's latest statistics showed that Xbox Live traffic quadrupled when "Halo 2" was launched on Nov. 9, and it has stayed at that level since. Sandvine claims that this will put added pressure on ISPs to improve the quality of their broadband offerings, as users will demand reliability and low latency."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The point of the article is... (1)

quamaretto (666270) | more than 9 years ago | (#11034368)

...that lag can be caused by your internet connection. BRILLIANT!

Re:The point of the article is... (1)

grumpygrodyguy (603716) | more than 9 years ago | (#11048566)

For real, I still don't understand how

Sandvine claims that this will put added pressure on ISPs to improve the quality of their broadband offerings, as users will demand reliability and low latency.

'threatens' broadband, I guess it also threatens everyone's desire to retire in the stone-age.

I agree (2, Insightful)

MentalMooMan (785571) | more than 9 years ago | (#11034383)

Yes, I think this is a very dangerous issue, but might also encourage the isps to improve the speed and quality of their serviec. Who knows, this could be a geed thing!

Re:I agree (1, Troll)

Mikail (817047) | more than 9 years ago | (#11034566)

"a geed thing?" A thing relating to the command given to horses or oxen to turn them to the right? [reference.com]

Re:I agree (1)

MentalMooMan (785571) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036259)

It's a typo you hypocrite, no-one else seemed to care.

Re:I agree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11034787)

I don't understand. Isn't Halo 2 an XBOX only title? I didn't know it was available on PC?

Re:I agree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11035391)

The XBOX is a half-assed PC, and it haves a half-assed network connection...

Re:I agree (1)

DerWulf (782458) | more than 9 years ago | (#11043261)

the word you are looking for is 'has'. Aside from that, the XBOX is not half-assed. At least it offers reliable online play (via live) that actually features things like 'playing with you buddy', 'voice support' and other fun things like that. That's a lot more than PC games have been able to offer. I'd know, I play online on a PC and most games mp functionality hasn't improved over the standards set by quake.

Re:I agree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11038092)

Ok dude, the O is across the keyboard from the E.

It's not that hard.

Re:I agree (0, Troll)

Schemat1c (464768) | more than 9 years ago | (#11038385)

Ok dude, the O is across the keyboard from the E.

It's not that hard.


Well what do you expect from just a bunch of instincts using memories. You know about that typing instinct don't ya?

Re:I agree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11042745)

Not on a Dvorak layout.

Re:I agree (1)

DerWulf (782458) | more than 9 years ago | (#11043284)

if you look closly, you'll find that 'o' is almost exactly in the mirror position to 'e', if you cut the keyboard in half between 'g' and 'h'. He probably typed the letter with the wrong hand. It happens to me all the time.

Threaten? (2, Insightful)

humuhumunukunukuapu' (678704) | more than 9 years ago | (#11034388)

What in this article is a threat to broadband? What editor at CNet wrote this headline?

quote: ISPs see online games as an application that could tempt many people-- both PC and console users--to broadband.

yeah, they sound really scared.

maybe they meant "opportunity" but threat got posted instead. Damn spellchecker :)

shades of power play? (1)

fireduck (197000) | more than 9 years ago | (#11034401)

looks like it's time for Gabe and company at Valve to bring Power Play back from the vaporware/pipedream cabinet. is the X-box Live / Halo 2 usage that much greater than online Half-life was? is it really a new issue, or just the same old issue in new shiny Halo 2 wrapping?

Re:shades of power play? (2, Informative)

FLAGGR (800770) | more than 9 years ago | (#11035111)

Halo 2 has both usage and its bandwidth intensity working for it. Which takes more bandwidth, a game based off the Quake 2 engine, which worked well on 56k, or a game like Halo 2, with complicated phyiscs, bigger and more open levels etc etc? Obviously Halo 2 does. That's why its more pressure to ISP's or whatever.

Re:shades of power play? (1)

inhalentbroom (836865) | more than 9 years ago | (#11035440)

Better graphics doesn't necessarily translate into more bandwidth usage. Half-life 2 actually uses less bandwidth than Half-life. I think we can all agree that Half-life 2 has significantly better graphics than Half-life.

Re:shades of power play? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11035906)

The parent never said anything about graphics.

Re:shades of power play? (1)

ticklemeozmo (595926) | more than 9 years ago | (#11037421)

I don't have much bandwidth issues with my Cable modem playing Halo 2. In fact, I average less than 10k/sec download and less than 5k/sec upload while playing on Live in a Big Team Battle (16 people).

I played a few games with two Xboxen on the same line. My friend (Account1) and I (Account2) played in different Big Team Battles with mild lag. However, when we joined as a party there was again, no problem.

The problem came when we had 3 Xboxen on the same line, even playing in the same game. Could be our config on a router or whatever, but one of us (always randomly) would drop during game setup.

Line Info: 3MBs/down, 256k/up

Re:shades of power play? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11040985)

Hey Mr. 6.2 ha ha

tr.v. boxed, boxing, boxes
n. pl. box or boxes

Are you ready for the real world Information System degree boy.

Re:shades of power play? (1)

SkyWalk423 (661752) | more than 9 years ago | (#11043465)

God, what the hell is up with all the grammar/spelling/usage nazis in this thread?? Lighten up, it's /.!

Re:shades of power play? (1)

DerWulf (782458) | more than 9 years ago | (#11043304)

10k/s upload in a an online game is much though. hl(1) used 5k and hl2 is supposed to use even less.

Re:shades of power play? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11139104)

And in other news, I don't have any problem killing flies when I bomb my whole house with nerve gas.

Gosh, no bandwidth problems on a 3 MB/s connection? Thanks for sharing that useful tidbit, you stupid fucking asshole.

Re:shades of power play? (1)

cwensley (741704) | more than 9 years ago | (#11038663)

Well, with most PC games you communicate with the keyboard. In Halo2 (and any xbox live game), you communicate via voice, which uses much more bandwidth.

So yes, this is very different. (:

Re:shades of power play? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11038699)

VoIP bandwidth on the xbox is very inexpensive, especially compared to PS2 VoIP.

This is because xbox can use a better encryption because of a faster processor. PS2 VoIP runs at about 4.5kb/s while Xbox VoIP hits about 700b/s.

Re:shades of power play? (2, Insightful)

Doomstalk (629173) | more than 9 years ago | (#11039225)

This is because xbox can use a better encryption because of a faster processor.

You mean "compression" not "encryption", right?

Re:shades of power play? (1)

DerWulf (782458) | more than 9 years ago | (#11043346)

same thing ;)

Re:shades of power play? (1)

SwissCheese (571510) | more than 9 years ago | (#11044344)

No, they aren't.

Vaporware? Pipe dream? (1)

neocrono (619254) | more than 9 years ago | (#11041149)

...but isn't Steam [steampowered.com] synonymous with Power Play?

Re:Vaporware? Pipe dream? (1)

neocrono (619254) | more than 9 years ago | (#11041173)

Nevermind, didn't take too long to find out I was remembering completely incorrectly. Just long enough that I could appear ignorant. Perfect!

Re:shades of power play? (1)

devnull17 (592326) | more than 9 years ago | (#11044610)

It might not be that much more bandwidth-intensive on a per-client basis, but it's a scale thing.

There are a lot of people out there that couldn't be bothered to set up a gaming PC and play Half-Life or Counter-Strike--it's not an easy thing to do if you don't know computers well. On the other hand, even Grandma could set up an XBox and sign in to Live.

The problem for ISP's lies in the fact that they have to oversell their bandwidth to generate a profit. There's a reason that cable can offer T3-esque speeds at a fraction of the cost. It isn't magic, they probably pay about the same amount for that bandwidth that you would independently. But since the typical home user probably consumes less than 1% of the available bandwidth of a T1 over a long period of time, well, you can see where I'm going with this.

The crux of the issue is that profitability and reliability for these ISPs depend on bandwidth utilization and network performance meeting a certain set of expectations, and online gaming may require more bandwidth than they'd projected. I sincerely doubt that this is the first time that cable and DSL providers have had to deal with this, and it certainly won't be the last.

Re:shades of power play? (1)

Minna Kirai (624281) | more than 9 years ago | (#11070874)

Obviously Halo 2 does.

Well, there is the fact that Halo2 only allows 25% as many players as Quake....

Spam vs Thruput (1)

donweel (304991) | more than 9 years ago | (#11034481)

If the providers start to shut down more spaamers and outher wasters of bandwidth, this is a good thing.

Re:Spam vs Thruput (1)

donweel (304991) | more than 9 years ago | (#11034537)

Rats I thought I hit the preview button, Spelling nazis have mercy.

A Better Headline... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11034487)

"People Using Net Threatens Broadband!"

Re:A Better Headline... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11038831)

Yeah, if the rest of you could just slow down for a minute, I could finally get the last 10% of that album I've been...

Oops.

FIRST POST (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11034493)

FIRST POST!

Re:FIRST POST (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11034555)

FP? You missed that train by 9 minutes.

Re:FIRST POST (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11034565)

You.....
.
.
.
.
FAIL IT!!!

Re:FIRST POST (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11037449)

In Korea only old people first post.

Re:FIRST POST (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11038849)

In Soviet Russia, old Korean people only first post YOU!

Cost effectiveness (1)

ShawnMcCool42 (557138) | more than 9 years ago | (#11034532)

I think we're really starting to see the cost of online connectivity drop. I just upgraded my cable account to 4mb/384k and i pay about $60/mo, not too shabby. I've just started seeing ads pop up for broadband specifically targetted towards gamers. I think we might start seeing a lot more competition aimed directly at us. It's funny, how a group so ignored and misunderstood can punch so much money into the industry. I'm interested in seeing how other industries are going to start taking the gamer perspective into account when creating/marketing their products. -- www.mktourney.com online console game tournaments. Football/Fighting/FPS

This isn't anything new - Prioritize! (5, Interesting)

Goyuix (698012) | more than 9 years ago | (#11034558)

ISPs have had the ability to deal with this for a long time. Many home users even take advantage of an easy bandage (probably not a fix) - simply prioritize packets. As an example, ACK's get priority whereas the next packet in your 3GB Linux ISO gets bumped by a millisecond or two. Net result: Your connection is still usable and responsive, even though it is being pushed near capacity. Heck, I was behind a transparent proxy for awhile (didn't bother me, but that is another story) that would simplify routing as well. Most home users would never even know (or care about) the difference. Most are proxied at work some way or another as it is.

ISPs can simply log their data, see where it is going and what it looks like and write some prioritization rules to give the end users some help. Yes it is more work for the ISP, but it is right in line with something they should be doing anyway.

Now if there was a way to do proper QoS on the internet at large, that would be an interesting proposition as well...

Re:This isn't anything new - Prioritize! (1)

kawika (87069) | more than 9 years ago | (#11034835)

Yes, there is already a well-tested priority scheme for this, driven by money. If you want a good table at the Vegas show, tip the guy 20 bucks at the door. So perhaps this will motivate the ISPs to provide tiered pricing, so that users who don't need 10ms ping--probably 80 percent of their users--won't have to pay for it. I sure know I don't want to pay more for lower ping times, I don't play online games and I'm happy with the performance as it is.

Re:This isn't anything new - Prioritize! (1)

ottothecow (600101) | more than 9 years ago | (#11039029)

Of course if they do that it won't mean lower prices for you.

They will make sure your ping times are in the mediocre range for gaming and offer your old ping times to people willing to pay an extra $10 a month

Re:This isn't anything new - Prioritize! (4, Insightful)

Have Blue (616) | more than 9 years ago | (#11035301)

Packet prioritization does not work in the real world beyond the LAN because of the potential for abuse. If ISPs were known to obey packet priority settings, everyone (or at least a number of scummy people large enough to break the system) would set all their packets to maximum priority, and enjoy improved speed at everyone else's expense until ISPs switched back to FCFS.

I believe TCP/IP has always supported packet prioritization, but it's always been ignored for this reason.

Re:This isn't anything new - Prioritize! (1)

Grey_14 (570901) | more than 9 years ago | (#11039890)

nuts to the ISP, I do this on my LAN, and it works great, I set higher priority's for Streaming radio, HTTP, and games, (halflife and variants mostly), then put bittorrent and FTP in lower priority's, I can have a bittorrent using 95% of my bandwidth, and keep a 40ms ping in counterstrike of Hostile Intent,

Re:This isn't anything new - Prioritize! (1)

DerWulf (782458) | more than 9 years ago | (#11043393)

how do I, the user, prioritize packets from/to a certain application?

Re:This isn't anything new - Prioritize! (1)

Minna Kirai (624281) | more than 9 years ago | (#11070848)

prioritize packets from/to a certain application?

Log into your router, and assign the port numbers used by gaming applications to have higher packet priority, or set ports used by bulk-download applications or email (where responsiveness doesn't matter) to low priority.

Of course, if your router doesn't have this feature, you'll need to upgrade.

Re:This isn't anything new - Prioritize! (1)

Minna Kirai (624281) | more than 9 years ago | (#11070840)

Packet prioritization does not work in the real world beyond the LAN because of the potential for abuse.

Wrong, in 3 ways. You can already modify your TCP and HTTP stacks to abuse the system for an unfair benefit, and yet most people don't.

If ISPs were known to obey packet priority settings, everyone (...) would set all their packets to maximum priority

If airlines were known to offer more comfortable "first class seating", everyone would use it, and enjoy more space at everyone else's expense.

Naturally, packet prioritization only works if the user somehow pays more for the better packets. (There are numerous ways to structure that pricing, some of them simplistic) This requirement is so obvious that advocates of priority levels usually don't bother to mention it.

I believe TCP/IP has always supported packet prioritization

Wrong [faqs.org] . (Do not confuse the "Urgent" flag with something that network routers will treat specially- it is only for use of recieving applications)

Re:This isn't anything new - Prioritize! (1)

BlueArchon (531981) | more than 9 years ago | (#11035455)

>Now if there was a way to do proper QoS on the internet at large, that would be an interesting proposition as well...

Until the first p2p-software that uses high priority packets for the bulk data transfer is published...

Low latency... (2, Interesting)

c.r.o.c.o (123083) | more than 9 years ago | (#11034590)

... is the most important part in my opinion. My ISP has always been extremely reliable, with at the most a day of downtime every six months. But for a while about half a year ago, their latency increased to the point where any online game became unplayeable. The connection was just fine for downloading data or browsing, but any server I could connect to would ping higher than 1s. Unfortunately, I could not switch ISPs, so I ended up giving up on gaming online.

I used to be an Americas Army fanatic, spending even 4-5 hours a day playing. I won't try to pretend that I've stopped playing games, but now I only do it at lan parties, or I play games that don't require an internet connection. The reason I was spending so much time online was not necessarily playing the game itself, but playing it with other people. Since that element was removed, I spend less than an hour a day playing, mostly Warcraft3.

As an interesting side note, my GPA improved quite a bit, and I have time to spend on other things... Imagine that!

Re:Low latency... (1)

Relic of the Future (118669) | more than 9 years ago | (#11034987)

...with at the most a day of downtime every six months.

Less than 99.5% uptime is not "extremely" reliable. It's also quite possible that it wasn't your ISP that changed, but something on your end. The first 2 weeks Halo was out, my roommates and I were having a terrible time getting decent connections. Turned out it was someone's malware infested laptop (it had gotten infected over wireless when he took it to campus; it had been fine siting behind our local firewall). The game went from unplayable to awesome instantly.

Re:Low latency... (1)

c.r.o.c.o (123083) | more than 9 years ago | (#11039735)

That's what I thought at first. My setup is a Slack gateway, a Windows XP gaming machine, a Slack box, a Slack laptop and Windows 2k machine. I checked all Windows computers on my LAN for virii and spyware. I also disconnected everything other than the gateway and the Windows gaming machine. I reinstalled Windows XP and the game. None of it helped.

At that point, I just called it a day. It's been 6 months now. In the meantime I did try playing AA once, and the connection was amazing, but unfortunately that game does not do anything for me anymore. But like I said, it's all for the better, I don't really miss it.

Re:Low latency... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11049091)

Is that you Mr President?

It's funny how things change... (5, Interesting)

log0n (18224) | more than 9 years ago | (#11034654)

When cable first was in development (@home was betatesting in Baltimore at least 7-8 years ago), just about anything other than straight up web browsing was a violation of the terms of service. Gaming (qworld, etc) was something you'd get suspension notices for because of how much of an impact it had then to the local 'community' network (all the pinging to servers, etc).

Fast forward a bit and highspeed gaming is now a major selling point for ISPs.

It's just funny to see how companies used to make huge problems out of things that later turn into total 180degree policy shifts.

Re:It's funny how things change... (3, Interesting)

Mr. Shiny And New (525071) | more than 9 years ago | (#11034746)

I was actually talking to a Rogers cable rep lately (the cable internet provider in Toronto, Ontario: it was formerly Rogers @home). I mentioned that I was having terrible latency problems, and he basically said that people who complain about latency are abusing the service in some way, or else they wouldn't care.

Bullshit. (1)

Recoil_42 (665710) | more than 9 years ago | (#11039916)

I live in Richmond Hill, a suburb of Toronto.

Rogers is just shit. Period. Terrible, terrible ISP.

All our computers are malware free, and i always make sure to shut off MSN, Gmail, etc. etc. every time i play. I run no FTP/HTTP services.

I constantly get unnaceptable (not unplayable, but low) pings. It's so bad we're actually looking to switch to Sympatico right now.

Re:Bullshit. (1)

Mr. Shiny And New (525071) | more than 9 years ago | (#11041077)

I'm actually trying out Primus ADSL right now; the ping times are better but my downloads seem a lot slower. So it seems I can't win.

Re:It's funny how things change... (1)

Sludge (1234) | more than 9 years ago | (#11035056)

Which is funny because @home used to have a commercial with a 2 second flash of Quake running on it in dm6. I guess they meant you can use their broadband to download the shareware client... hmm...

Re:It's funny how things change... (2, Informative)

DaveJay (133437) | more than 9 years ago | (#11035268)

Gee whiz. My ISP (dslextreme) runs their own game servers for customers to use if they want really low latency -- and they provide explicit setup instructions for XBox Live and PS2 online gaming.

I guess I should consider myself a lucky guy. :)

Re:It's funny how things change... (2, Funny)

Chemical (49694) | more than 9 years ago | (#11038591)

I had a dialup ISP, years ago, who had their own Quakeworld server that members could connect to. It was pretty awesome, except that it was a very small local ISP, so most of the time it was me wandering around an empty deathmatch map by myself.

Re:It's funny how things change... (1)

nick korma (836538) | more than 9 years ago | (#11042214)

well done - sounds awesome...and I reckon you always used to hide with a ton of ammo and a decent weapon just incase somebody joined in

Re:It's funny how things change... (1)

SkyWalk423 (661752) | more than 9 years ago | (#11043548)

I get the part about providing their own game servers (I think that's GREAT btw), but about the setup instructions for Xbox Live.... there's nothing to customize in setting up XBL, is there?? You don't specify servers or tweak any settings, you just connect and go.

Oh NO! (3, Insightful)

Alkaiser (114022) | more than 9 years ago | (#11034709)

A demand for RELIABILITY?! How will these corporations ever stay competitive?!

Seriously, these complaints are as stupid as the ones made by the insurance companies that insured the buildings after 9/11. Complaining about how they wouldn't be able to stay in business if they had to pay for these buildings.

Your ENTIRE BUSINESS MODEL is based off of people paying you money in case something like this happens. That is the ONLY service you provide. And then they're saying that they can't provide it. Freaking brilliant. I hate corporations.

P2P (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11034719)

This is no different from when p2p applications began to become mainstream.. Even with the huge numbers of halo 2 players online, I still think that filesharing uses more bandwidth.

Re:P2P (1)

bairy (755347) | more than 9 years ago | (#11035396)

It may well do, but p2p isn't latency dependant, online gaming is.
ISPs haven't just gotta handle big traffic, they've gotta handle it fast

Ha! Right. (4, Interesting)

skadus (821655) | more than 9 years ago | (#11034791)

They might do it, but they'll offer it as a new 'premium service'. Cebridge is doing it in my suburb of Houston, and RoadRunner is advertising it on the radio in Houston proper.

I guess it's only fair, since they have to upgrade the lines for gamers and downloaders, but it feels like extortion. 'What? You're lagging out in Warcraft? Well, if you paid 15 bucks [I'm guestimating the price] more a month you wouldn't get killed so often. You want to enjoy your game don't you?'

NANOG (3, Interesting)

jmcleod (233418) | more than 9 years ago | (#11035337)

This is being discussed on NANOG. Consensus is that (surprise, surprise) this is a PR move by Sandvine, who just happens to have a bandwidth management product. Several network managers in charge of large, multithousand-user networks, and including one large university campus, and a couple of ISPs, have chimed in saying that they've seen no real increase in bandwidth usage since Halo 2 was launched, and in fact, in a couple cases, have seen usage drop, attributable to the migration of PC/Mac Halo 1 players to the Xbox-only Halo 2.

The sky is not falling.

Um hello (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11035618)

Am I the only one who sees this as more Halo 2 marketing bullshit? Oh noes, Halo 2 sold so well it's threatening the internet! Please. This article reminds me of the "PS2 can fire missiles" and "Rumors of shortages of this Christmas" bullcocky of yore.


As has been stated, there are many other games, not to mention NON-GAME APPLICATIONS, that have much higher bandwidth requirements.


Someone at CNET got a fat check for this article.

That... (1)

zarthrag (650912) | more than 9 years ago | (#11035945)

...Is a very good thing. Here, Cox is the premier ISP - crappiest service ever. More often than not, the service is out during peak hours, and the customer service line is always busy. On top of that, the reps will flat-out LIE to you and say that you're the cause of the outage. (I was once told that my "illegal router" brought down the Norman service area.)

Increased loads will cause Cox to at least build a better network, but I'm sure the service will stay pretty bad.

Significant for cable, not DSL? (1)

Farmer Jimbo (515393) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036052)

Sandvine claims that this will put added pressure on cable company (my edit) ISPs to improve the quality of their broadband offerings, as users will demand reliability and low latency.

I find it hard to beleive this is an issue for DSL providers, but I can see this totally clogging up some sections of cable broadband ISP.

Re:Significant for cable, not DSL? (1)

Zed2K (313037) | more than 9 years ago | (#11043544)

DSL still has its bottleneck, its just further down the pipe. DSL speeds are generally slower than cable also. In the lifetime of high speed internet I've only known 2 people to have dsl, one absolutely hated it, nothing but problems and ditched it for cable as soon as cable was available. The other person still has it now but is paying such a low price and doesn't really use the internet much so thats not a good representation.

ISPs (1)

Deliveranc3 (629997) | more than 9 years ago | (#11037008)

ISP sales reps usually don't even know what latency is, I've heard comment's like.

Higher throughput means lower latency" and other ridiculous panderings. I haven't heard of anyone who is extraordinarily happy with their isp, it's a routine service it should JUST WORK without concerns like 98% uptime.

Stop advertising Halo 2 (3, Interesting)

Red Moose (31712) | more than 9 years ago | (#11037424)

OK, enough with Halo 2. Plenty more games have larger userbases so stop advertising Halo 2 on Slashdot, for the love of god.

Re:Stop advertising Halo 2 (2, Insightful)

MMaestro (585010) | more than 9 years ago | (#11037543)

Really now? I didn't see crowds of people standing outside my local EBGames for the Half-Life 2 launch. Instead of hearing Half-Life 2 breaking sales records, I hear complaints about Steam, loading issues and copy protection preventing people from playing the game. Take your pick : you can have the larger userbase but a system that blows, or a smaller userbase but is refined and polished so Joe Average can use it. Either way Halo 2 outdoes Half-Life 2 in the media.

Re:Stop advertising Halo 2 (1)

Libaw (776673) | more than 9 years ago | (#11041941)

whoo hoo so halo 2 has a big user base. what's the point. not that i'm giving credit to half-life or anything but from what i can see in halo 2 there is nothing new on it. yea it may be new for halo but being able to hold two guns has been in bond forever. the plot line is never as good as everyone says.(aliens trying to take over the world with a plot twist that leaves the main charrecter on his own) i still and probably never will see why halo is so huge.

Re:Stop advertising Halo 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11043333)

Marathon had dual wielding pistols before bond. (marathon is an older bungie game)

Re:Stop advertising Halo 2 (1)

mink (266117) | more than 9 years ago | (#11056171)

On the non mac side I think one of the early deal wield games was Rise of the Triad.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?