Topic: Online Multiplayer Servers

In the last generation Microsoft was very good about keeping servers active after for games that weren't to popular. I love Shadowrun for 360 and played that long after the developer went under. Sony wasn't as good at keeping servers active for unpopular games. Now they both require subscriptions for their online services. Do you think things will be different? Is Microsoft worst about servers? Is Sony better with servers? It might be to early to tell but what do people think?

Actually, I don't care about both. To me it is sick to charge you not only for the game, but also for privlage of playing shoehorned online component, for which you already payed. And it is "as long as they see it fit", so ultimately, with online only games on console, you are giving them money for a game that will be unplayable in some time

It probably will be different and servers could be more stable or whatever, but Sony will not beat MS with their live as far as online gaming goes. They are still catching up, just like Nintendo

Eventually I will die, and the offline games I paid for will be unplayable. Online games just expire sooner.

Keep in mind that during Gen7, Microsoft was the one to provide servers, and developers had to pay for maintenance plans - the servers must run until the runtime is over (I have no idea about the details, though). And this also holds true for anything concerning online for XBone.

Sony left online services to the developers/publishers, which means they had no word on either quality or server runtime at all. Developers could just shut them down as soon as they didn't feel like it/couldn't cover the costs anymore. But because many idiots complained to Sony about weaker servers and other online problems instead of the developers, Sony decided to do the same thing as M$ with their own online platform - paid subscription. I'm not gonna go into discussions why the very base is absolute bull, but Sony did this mainly to get rid of the "inferior online" image they got undeservedly.

There are not that many that used dedicated servers. (Which is the best Nintendo should use that).

Most of the games are P2P or Client / Server. (Where the server is one of the players determined somehow).

Sony was the worst with servers, and this is coming from someone who owned all 3. I had a Wii in 7th gen for 3 years, then I got a PS3 and the online was better, but only because the games themselves were more advanced. The only thing that sucked was the download speed. Wii was downloading smaller files than PS3 was at the same speed. Once I got an Xbox 360, PS3's online looked like a joke. By the end of the generation, internet was alot better, so it was better to judge the server quality, and I still think Sony had the worst servers when all was said and done.

PS3's online was good, but Xbox 360's was better, and Wii's was just there doing whatever, which was good enough for the type of machine it was, and this is all during a time where Wifi was starting to be more popular. I think Wii had the immediate wifi advantage, because files were smaller, and games weren't as demanding.

That is why Sony charges for online, because not doing so bit them in the rear. Not charging for PSN made the servers sub-par, compared to what they could have been, and it cost Sony more than it was worth to support said servers. So it was basically a one-two punch on Sony for not charging for online. I think most of Wii U's games are just on some sort of standard server, like how Wii and DS were, which is why their online was/is free.