Win a free Xbox + 4 controllers + 5 games

Win a free Xbox + 4 controllers + 5 games

Post by Boid » Thu, 01 Aug 2002 02:54:15



I just posted this over on TeamXbox and, since this newsgroup is my true
home, you guys should be notified as well.

There is a big debate going on about XBL and peer-to-peer * versus
server-hosted *. I have plenty of evidence that many if not most
games will be peer-to-peer, but a few vocal individuals insist that I'm
absolutely wrong.

Due to my contact with an Xbox Live "insider", I am absolutely confident
in this assessment. So much so that if it turns out that all XBL games
are centrally hosted, either by MS or publishers, then I will purchase
any one of the following prizes for one lucky random person:

- A new Xbox, 4 controllers, and 5 games of your choice
- Any make/model of television not to exceed $500
- Any make/model of A/V receiver not to exceed $500

Of course there's nothing but my reputation holding me to this promise,
but I value my rep and my cred on the newsgroups so if I'm wrong, I'll
pay up. To count as "wrong", the following conditions must be met:

All XBL games available at XBL launch must have a server-side component
that is executing on either a Microsoft XBL server or a server set up by
the publisher. There can be no games that rely on the local Xbox to
"host" the game. The XBL components needed to find games, locate
buddies, store stats, etc. do NOT count as "server component". It must
be the actual game logic - player movements, hit locations, A.I., etc.

If I turn out to be wrong, I will advertise in ms.public.xbox and
anybody (even people who haven't been a part of this or any other XBL
architecture thread) can submit their name for the prize. Please don't
bombard me with e-mail just yet - wait until I get my beta package at
least! :D

I will also add a page to my website with this offer.

 
 
 

Win a free Xbox + 4 controllers + 5 games

Post by Suddenly_Dea » Thu, 01 Aug 2002 04:06:45


And thank you for the information :D

 
 
 

Win a free Xbox + 4 controllers + 5 games

Post by Suddenly_Dea » Thu, 01 Aug 2002 04:06:18


There's still some things bugging me.  Cheating for one,
but mostly the inablility to kick or boot TKers or plain
idiots from your games, if it's P2P.  Not a good thing,
in my opinion, as i've played many online games riddled
with TKers.  

  The only tihng i can see to remedy this would be a
voting system, like the TRIBES series has.  Problem with
the voting system is that newbies often vote without
looking, and i've been booted out of TRIBES 2 games for
simply killing an enemy who thought he had 'mad skillz'.  
Or, whever i want to vote to kick a TKer, most people
seem to just vote no and never listen to my explanation.  
Still, a voting system would be better then nothing.

Quote:>-----Original Message-----
>I just posted this over on TeamXbox and, since this

newsgroup is my true
Quote:>home, you guys should be notified as well.

>There is a big debate going on about XBL and peer-to-
peer * versus
>server-hosted *. I have plenty of evidence that
many if not most
>games will be peer-to-peer, but a few vocal individuals
insist that I'm
>absolutely wrong.

>Due to my contact with an Xbox Live "insider", I am

absolutely confident
Quote:>in this assessment. So much so that if it turns out that
all XBL games
>are centrally hosted, either by MS or publishers, then I
will purchase
>any one of the following prizes for one lucky random
person:

>- A new Xbox, 4 controllers, and 5 games of your choice
>- Any make/model of television not to exceed $500
>- Any make/model of A/V receiver not to exceed $500

>Of course there's nothing but my reputation holding me
to this promise,
>but I value my rep and my cred on the newsgroups so if
I'm wrong, I'll
>pay up. To count as "wrong", the following conditions
must be met:

>All XBL games available at XBL launch must have a server-
side component
>that is executing on either a Microsoft XBL server or a
server set up by
>the publisher. There can be no games that rely on the
local Xbox to
>"host" the game. The XBL components needed to find
games, locate
>buddies, store stats, etc. do NOT count as "server
component". It must
>be the actual game logic - player movements, hit

locations, A.I., etc.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

>If I turn out to be wrong, I will advertise in
ms.public.xbox and
>anybody (even people who haven't been a part of this or
any other XBL
>architecture thread) can submit their name for the
prize. Please don't
>bombard me with e-mail just yet - wait until I get my
beta package at
>least! :D

>I will also add a page to my website with this offer.
>.

 
 
 

Win a free Xbox + 4 controllers + 5 games

Post by Boid » Thu, 01 Aug 2002 04:32:47


I believe you can boot anybody you want from your games, and you can
password-protect your games. I think you can even mark your games as "my
buddies only". Since every gamer will have a validated (and paid for)
GamerTag, people won't be able to just log on under a different name and
avoid your blocks.

Now for the centrally-hosted games - where you really will have little
control - I think a voting system would work very well. If a certain
GamerTag is causing a bunch of trouble in an MMORPG, for instance, you
can place a "vote" against him. If enough votes from different GamerTags
are accumulated, perhaps MS sends him a little note asking him to tone
it down.

They gotta have some way to report troublesome users. One thing in our
favor, though, is that since this is a paid service, people will
probably be on slightly better behavior. You don't want to get booted
from your $9.95/month service.


> There's still some things bugging me.  Cheating for one,
> but mostly the inablility to kick or boot TKers or plain
> idiots from your games, if it's P2P.  Not a good thing,
> in my opinion, as i've played many online games riddled
> with TKers.

>   The only tihng i can see to remedy this would be a
> voting system, like the TRIBES series has.  Problem with
> the voting system is that newbies often vote without
> looking, and i've been booted out of TRIBES 2 games for
> simply killing an enemy who thought he had 'mad skillz'.
> Or, whever i want to vote to kick a TKer, most people
> seem to just vote no and never listen to my explanation.
> Still, a voting system would be better then nothing.

> >-----Original Message-----
> >I just posted this over on TeamXbox and, since this
> newsgroup is my true
> >home, you guys should be notified as well.

> >There is a big debate going on about XBL and peer-to-
> peer * versus
> >server-hosted *. I have plenty of evidence that
> many if not most
> >games will be peer-to-peer, but a few vocal individuals
> insist that I'm
> >absolutely wrong.

> >Due to my contact with an Xbox Live "insider", I am
> absolutely confident
> >in this assessment. So much so that if it turns out that
> all XBL games
> >are centrally hosted, either by MS or publishers, then I
> will purchase
> >any one of the following prizes for one lucky random
> person:

> >- A new Xbox, 4 controllers, and 5 games of your choice
> >- Any make/model of television not to exceed $500
> >- Any make/model of A/V receiver not to exceed $500

> >Of course there's nothing but my reputation holding me
> to this promise,
> >but I value my rep and my cred on the newsgroups so if
> I'm wrong, I'll
> >pay up. To count as "wrong", the following conditions
> must be met:

> >All XBL games available at XBL launch must have a server-
> side component
> >that is executing on either a Microsoft XBL server or a
> server set up by
> >the publisher. There can be no games that rely on the
> local Xbox to
> >"host" the game. The XBL components needed to find
> games, locate
> >buddies, store stats, etc. do NOT count as "server
> component". It must
> >be the actual game logic - player movements, hit
> locations, A.I., etc.

> >If I turn out to be wrong, I will advertise in
> ms.public.xbox and
> >anybody (even people who haven't been a part of this or
> any other XBL
> >architecture thread) can submit their name for the
> prize. Please don't
> >bombard me with e-mail just yet - wait until I get my
> beta package at
> >least! :D

> >I will also add a page to my website with this offer.
> >.

 
 
 

Win a free Xbox + 4 controllers + 5 games

Post by Boid » Thu, 01 Aug 2002 04:35:53



> And thank you for the information :D

No problem. I hope people start to see where I'm coming from.
Central-hosting just doesn't make sense for most games. The Xbox has
plenty of power to host, considering it and the games are optimized
*specifically* to support online *.
 
 
 

Win a free Xbox + 4 controllers + 5 games

Post by banshe » Thu, 01 Aug 2002 05:32:10


I thought in that video at xbox2k.com that has that
Grasshopper guy he says you can either create a match or
join a match on Revolt.
 
 
 

Win a free Xbox + 4 controllers + 5 games

Post by BL » Thu, 01 Aug 2002 05:44:42


Well, if you can create a match, how do you expect people would be able to
play with you if they don't, in turn, "join a match?"

-BL


Quote:> I thought in that video at xbox2k.com that has that
> Grasshopper guy he says you can either create a match or
> join a match on Revolt.

 
 
 

Win a free Xbox + 4 controllers + 5 games

Post by Boid » Thu, 01 Aug 2002 05:59:38


That's right. "Create a match" is just like "create a game" or "host a
game" in Unreal Tournament or Team Fortress. You start up a new game on
your Xbox, it is entered into the list of available games (unless you
choose to make it 'private') and others can then "join" your game. Game
is hosted on your Xbox; matchmaking is done through XBL.

> Well, if you can create a match, how do you expect people would be able to
> play with you if they don't, in turn, "join a match?"

> -BL



> > I thought in that video at xbox2k.com that has that
> > Grasshopper guy he says you can either create a match or
> > join a match on Revolt.

 
 
 

Win a free Xbox + 4 controllers + 5 games

Post by Michael R. Brum » Thu, 01 Aug 2002 06:38:59



> To count as "wrong", the following conditions must be met:

> All XBL games available at XBL launch must have a server-side component
> that is executing on either a Microsoft XBL server or a server set up by
> the publisher. There can be no games that rely on the local Xbox to
> "host" the game. The XBL components needed to find games, locate
> buddies, store stats, etc. do NOT count as "server component". It must
> be the actual game logic - player movements, hit locations, A.I., etc.

*ALL* XBL games have to be server hosted before you are counted as wrong?
Well, you are almost guaranteed to be right about at least one game.

I never made a blanket statement saying that ALL games would be server
hosted. Some games actually play better (less bandwidth/lower latency) using
peer-to-peer:

- any game that is 1vs1 only
- turn-based games (everything from chess and card games to certain role
playing games)

Since it is sounding like NFL Fever 2003 will be a one vs. one game, I'm
guessing your money is safe.

If you want a real contest, then let's pick the specific game we were
talking about: "Unreal Tournament". If it is server based, we win. If it is
peer-to-peer, then you win.

 
 
 

Win a free Xbox + 4 controllers + 5 games

Post by Boid » Thu, 01 Aug 2002 07:05:34




> > To count as "wrong", the following conditions must be met:

> > All XBL games available at XBL launch must have a server-side component
> > that is executing on either a Microsoft XBL server or a server set up by
> > the publisher. There can be no games that rely on the local Xbox to
> > "host" the game. The XBL components needed to find games, locate
> > buddies, store stats, etc. do NOT count as "server component". It must
> > be the actual game logic - player movements, hit locations, A.I., etc.

> *ALL* XBL games have to be server hosted before you are counted as wrong?
> Well, you are almost guaranteed to be right about at least one game.

> I never made a blanket statement saying that ALL games would be server
> hosted.

And I didn't make this a ME vs. YOU thing, did I? Others in the TeamXbox
thread DID imply that every single game would be server hosted. Let's
not make this personal, K?

Quote:> Some games actually play better (less bandwidth/lower latency) using
> peer-to-peer:

> - any game that is 1vs1 only
> - turn-based games (everything from chess and card games to certain role
> playing games)

> Since it is sounding like NFL Fever 2003 will be a one vs. one game, I'm
> guessing your money is safe.

> If you want a real contest, then let's pick the specific game we were
> talking about: "Unreal Tournament". If it is server based, we win. If it is
> peer-to-peer, then you win.

I'm sorry, but I won't tie the deal to a specific game and especially
not Unreal Championship (I assume you meant that?) since nobody's seen
it yet (at least not anybody I've spoken with). If I hear from one of my
sources that UC is specifically set up for peer-to-peer, then sure I'll
take that bet.

I will gladly exclude games which ONLY allow one player vs. one player
(I'm talking 2 total players in the entire game - not 2 GamerTags plus 6
guests) and board/card games. I know for a fact that at least one
football game currently being used for beta testing allows more than 1
vs 1 and is peer-to-peer. So I agree that my money is safe.

When I write this up for my web site, I will include these conditions:

- Games which only allow two total players (including guests) do not
count, no matter where they are hosted
- Common board games and card games do not count, no matter where they
are hosted

It's interesting that you got so quickly defensive on this, when you
have NOTHING to lose. I'm putting up $500 of my money because I'm
confident in my position - what are YOU putting up to warrant demands as
to how I word the proposal? Sheez. You put up $500 of your own money
against mine and then we'll talk.

The whole point of this offer was to get people to read the documents,
examine the trailers, and THINK for a moment about what makes sense. I
figured if people saw that I was willing to drop half a G in support of
my position - with NO upside for me besides being right (whoopee) -
maybe they'd say to themselves "hey, he really seems to think he's got
it nailed - maybe I better reconsider and go check it out."

I still hope that *some* people will do that. Others will quibble about
the offer. So be it. I'll make the changes as indicated above. Let that
be the end of it.

 
 
 

Win a free Xbox + 4 controllers + 5 games

Post by xslack » Thu, 01 Aug 2002 07:29:10


Boid-

Thanks for* in with this info, and walking the fine line between
whay you can and can't say. It must be frustrating to be able to put some
arguments to rest, if only you could divulge what you promised to keep
mum, LOL!!!

I suppose I should go over to TeamXbox to see if this has been asked and
answered, but lately I have only time for this news group, so:

Intuition tells me that MS is going to redefine online *, and hosting
will become a blurry definition. I think this mostly because of the voice
handling.

I think that for more than 4 players (and maybe even for more than 2...) it
is likely that MS' severs will mix and separate voice audio for the players,
even if the game is hosted in a P2P manner. By hosting, I mean the host is
where gameplay synchronization is done.

In other words, for more than a few players in a game, there will be too
many separate voice channels to work well with a low-end broadband
connection. They have to be mixed somewhere, and that somewhere
*must* be at a central server that is receiving all of the voices. The
server
then mixes everything (perhaps muting certain ones according to player
mute commands) and sends the mixes back to the appropriate gamers.
That way, every gamer has only one channel of upstream voice, and one
downstream mixed channel of everyone else's voice. It is the only way it
can work without very extreme and unsynchronized voice lag!

FWIW, intuition also tells me that game data and voice data are already
separate network streams in and out of the Xbox, and the voice could
just get routed thru MS' servers when a large game is set up.

So, it could be P2P "game data hosting," and MS "voice hosting" all at
the same time, after Matchmaking is done through MS servers??

Does this ring true with what your sources will tell you? Am really
curious about that one...

_xslacks


> I just posted this over on TeamXbox and, since this newsgroup is my true
> home, you guys should be notified as well.

> There is a big debate going on about XBL and peer-to-peer * versus
> server-hosted *. I have plenty of evidence that many if not most
> games will be peer-to-peer, but a few vocal individuals insist that I'm
> absolutely wrong.

> Due to my contact with an Xbox Live "insider", I am absolutely confident
> in this assessment. So much so that if it turns out that all XBL games
> are centrally hosted, either by MS or publishers, then I will purchase
> any one of the following prizes for one lucky random person:

> - A new Xbox, 4 controllers, and 5 games of your choice
> - Any make/model of television not to exceed $500
> - Any make/model of A/V receiver not to exceed $500

> Of course there's nothing but my reputation holding me to this promise,
> but I value my rep and my cred on the newsgroups so if I'm wrong, I'll
> pay up. To count as "wrong", the following conditions must be met:

> All XBL games available at XBL launch must have a server-side component
> that is executing on either a Microsoft XBL server or a server set up by
> the publisher. There can be no games that rely on the local Xbox to
> "host" the game. The XBL components needed to find games, locate
> buddies, store stats, etc. do NOT count as "server component". It must
> be the actual game logic - player movements, hit locations, A.I., etc.

> If I turn out to be wrong, I will advertise in ms.public.xbox and
> anybody (even people who haven't been a part of this or any other XBL
> architecture thread) can submit their name for the prize. Please don't
> bombard me with e-mail just yet - wait until I get my beta package at
> least! :D

> I will also add a page to my website with this offer.

 
 
 

Win a free Xbox + 4 controllers + 5 games

Post by Boid » Thu, 01 Aug 2002 07:46:41


Excellent question, and one I'm going to have to allow for in my
"offer", since somebody is going to claim voice mixing as "hosting", you
can be sure. Of course, I'll just say "too f***ing bad - you know what I
meant." :-)

Unfortunately, what I've heard so far doesn't come near clearing up the
audio issue. In the one game I've heard the most about, only one person
per Xbox was even allowed to use the Communicator, so multiple voices
wasn't an issue. I have no idea if this will be the norm or was just a
fluke of the beta testing environment. They only had one GamerTag to use
and everybody else played as guests. What happens if you have two
GamerTags? Dunno.

As for mixing the voices, I definitely see where you're going and I
don't have any evidence one way or the other. Your theory sounds
eminently reasonable. We already know that the servers will "keep tabs"
on games in progress, so why not allocate some CPU cycles to mixing
voice audio? Another point in your favor is the requirement that all XBL
games support voice audio. This makes me think that the voice APIs "sit
on top" of the regular XBL APIs and game developers probably don't have
to deal with them very much. In other words, so long as your game is
using an active XBL connection, you kinda get voice for free. This, in
turn, would imply that allocating CPU power to game A.I. vs. voice
mixing isn't an issue - XBL automatically takes care of it by...handling
it on the central server maybe? Sounds reasonable.

If I hear anything (woo, a pun), I'll let you know.


> Boid-

> Thanks for* in with this info, and walking the fine line between
> whay you can and can't say. It must be frustrating to be able to put some
> arguments to rest, if only you could divulge what you promised to keep
> mum, LOL!!!

> I suppose I should go over to TeamXbox to see if this has been asked and
> answered, but lately I have only time for this news group, so:

> Intuition tells me that MS is going to redefine online *, and hosting
> will become a blurry definition. I think this mostly because of the voice
> handling.

> I think that for more than 4 players (and maybe even for more than 2...) it
> is likely that MS' severs will mix and separate voice audio for the players,
> even if the game is hosted in a P2P manner. By hosting, I mean the host is
> where gameplay synchronization is done.

> In other words, for more than a few players in a game, there will be too
> many separate voice channels to work well with a low-end broadband
> connection. They have to be mixed somewhere, and that somewhere
> *must* be at a central server that is receiving all of the voices. The
> server
> then mixes everything (perhaps muting certain ones according to player
> mute commands) and sends the mixes back to the appropriate gamers.
> That way, every gamer has only one channel of upstream voice, and one
> downstream mixed channel of everyone else's voice. It is the only way it
> can work without very extreme and unsynchronized voice lag!

> FWIW, intuition also tells me that game data and voice data are already
> separate network streams in and out of the Xbox, and the voice could
> just get routed thru MS' servers when a large game is set up.

> So, it could be P2P "game data hosting," and MS "voice hosting" all at
> the same time, after Matchmaking is done through MS servers??

> Does this ring true with what your sources will tell you? Am really
> curious about that one...

> _xslacks


> > I just posted this over on TeamXbox and, since this newsgroup is my true
> > home, you guys should be notified as well.

> > There is a big debate going on about XBL and peer-to-peer * versus
> > server-hosted *. I have plenty of evidence that many if not most
> > games will be peer-to-peer, but a few vocal individuals insist that I'm
> > absolutely wrong.

> > Due to my contact with an Xbox Live "insider", I am absolutely confident
> > in this assessment. So much so that if it turns out that all XBL games
> > are centrally hosted, either by MS or publishers, then I will purchase
> > any one of the following prizes for one lucky random person:

> > - A new Xbox, 4 controllers, and 5 games of your choice
> > - Any make/model of television not to exceed $500
> > - Any make/model of A/V receiver not to exceed $500

> > Of course there's nothing but my reputation holding me to this promise,
> > but I value my rep and my cred on the newsgroups so if I'm wrong, I'll
> > pay up. To count as "wrong", the following conditions must be met:

> > All XBL games available at XBL launch must have a server-side component
> > that is executing on either a Microsoft XBL server or a server set up by
> > the publisher. There can be no games that rely on the local Xbox to
> > "host" the game. The XBL components needed to find games, locate
> > buddies, store stats, etc. do NOT count as "server component". It must
> > be the actual game logic - player movements, hit locations, A.I., etc.

> > If I turn out to be wrong, I will advertise in ms.public.xbox and
> > anybody (even people who haven't been a part of this or any other XBL
> > architecture thread) can submit their name for the prize. Please don't
> > bombard me with e-mail just yet - wait until I get my beta package at
> > least! :D

> > I will also add a page to my website with this offer.

 
 
 

Win a free Xbox + 4 controllers + 5 games

Post by Daniel Fre » Thu, 01 Aug 2002 11:39:56


I agree with you Boid.

They will more than likely have a centralized server to do *authentication*
on the XBL networks and from there it will be P2P.

Money isn't an issue with Microsoft, but if one of their servers went down
and it was centrally hosted I'd be quite ticked. At least if you were
authenticated already and they had issues you could still continue with P2P.
Just don't turn off the Xbox.

I can't see P2P taking up that many clock cycles. You can have a server that
hosts a couple of hundred users that runs at 266MHz. If the Xbox is hosting
say 15 players besides itself it prolly the host wouldn't even use 5% of the
clock cycles from the CPU. With the nVidia chip doing the 3D calculations it
won't be a problem at all.

D



> > And thank you for the information :D

> No problem. I hope people start to see where I'm coming from.
> Central-hosting just doesn't make sense for most games. The Xbox has
> plenty of power to host, considering it and the games are optimized
> *specifically* to support online *.

 
 
 

Win a free Xbox + 4 controllers + 5 games

Post by Boid » Thu, 01 Aug 2002 12:00:13


Not only does common sense point to P2P for many games, but I actually
know someone (virtually, anyway) who has played two games on XBL and
both were "user hosted". That's why I know my $500 is safe. :-)

Unreal Championship is an unknown, though. I'm with you that for up to
maybe 16 total players, a good 128kbps connection could work pretty
well. But 32 players? Dunno. The Xbox is certainly a highly-optimized
platform, but I wonder if only the high-end BB connections will be
able to handle a 32-player game. Or, I wonder if UC actually will
offload some game logic onto a central server. I find it unlikely, but
not outside the realm of possibility.

The whole voice thing is another interesting quandry. Does a single
box have the power to mix voice data from all other boxes? Dunno.

I dialed "1-800-Daniel Frey" and a sultry voice said:

>I agree with you Boid.

>They will more than likely have a centralized server to do *authentication*
>on the XBL networks and from there it will be P2P.

>Money isn't an issue with Microsoft, but if one of their servers went down
>and it was centrally hosted I'd be quite ticked. At least if you were
>authenticated already and they had issues you could still continue with P2P.
>Just don't turn off the Xbox.

>I can't see P2P taking up that many clock cycles. You can have a server that
>hosts a couple of hundred users that runs at 266MHz. If the Xbox is hosting
>say 15 players besides itself it prolly the host wouldn't even use 5% of the
>clock cycles from the CPU. With the nVidia chip doing the 3D calculations it
>won't be a problem at all.

>D



>> > And thank you for the information :D

>> No problem. I hope people start to see where I'm coming from.
>> Central-hosting just doesn't make sense for most games. The Xbox has
>> plenty of power to host, considering it and the games are optimized
>> *specifically* to support online *.

 
 
 

Win a free Xbox + 4 controllers + 5 games

Post by StemCel » Thu, 01 Aug 2002 12:25:13


Maybe MS will be using an optimised version of there Conferencing Server? I
have tested this service over very low bandwidth (dial up) with good
results. One of the benefits MS has is it's product lines and experience.
It's not a new technology for them.


> Not only does common sense point to P2P for many games, but I actually
> know someone (virtually, anyway) who has played two games on XBL and
> both were "user hosted". That's why I know my $500 is safe. :-)

> Unreal Championship is an unknown, though. I'm with you that for up to
> maybe 16 total players, a good 128kbps connection could work pretty
> well. But 32 players? Dunno. The Xbox is certainly a highly-optimized
> platform, but I wonder if only the high-end BB connections will be
> able to handle a 32-player game. Or, I wonder if UC actually will
> offload some game logic onto a central server. I find it unlikely, but
> not outside the realm of possibility.

> The whole voice thing is another interesting quandry. Does a single
> box have the power to mix voice data from all other boxes? Dunno.

> I dialed "1-800-Daniel Frey" and a sultry voice said:
> >I agree with you Boid.

> >They will more than likely have a centralized server to do
*authentication*
> >on the XBL networks and from there it will be P2P.

> >Money isn't an issue with Microsoft, but if one of their servers went
down
> >and it was centrally hosted I'd be quite ticked. At least if you were
> >authenticated already and they had issues you could still continue with
P2P.
> >Just don't turn off the Xbox.

> >I can't see P2P taking up that many clock cycles. You can have a server
that
> >hosts a couple of hundred users that runs at 266MHz. If the Xbox is
hosting
> >say 15 players besides itself it prolly the host wouldn't even use 5% of
the
> >clock cycles from the CPU. With the nVidia chip doing the 3D calculations
it
> >won't be a problem at all.

> >D



> >> > And thank you for the information :D

> >> No problem. I hope people start to see where I'm coming from.
> >> Central-hosting just doesn't make sense for most games. The Xbox has
> >> plenty of power to host, considering it and the games are optimized
> >> *specifically* to support online *.

 
 
 

1. Win XBOX=FREE=FUN=Games

Sign up at readysetgamer.com and be entered in drawings
for Xboxes, Gamecubes, Xbox games , gamecube games ,
PS2s , PS2 Games , Memory cards(xbox gamecube or PS2),
Controllers and more. Sign up its free. Just Reffer me as
the person who told you about it and you will be entered
in many contests and the best part is that ITS FREE. Its
easy to win. Some people win after just 5 DAYS!!!!! THink
you could have saved 50 BUCKS and all you have to do is
sign up for FRee.THay dont sell or give away info.

SIGN UP at www.readysetgamer.com

Ryan Brown

NOTE reffer me as the person who made you win GAMES AND
SYSTEMS FOR FREE!!!!

2. SNA Server Documentation

3. Win a xbox game.....no matter what you win

4. Strategy Game

5. FREE Xbox, free games and peripherals

6. asus k7m

7. Xbox Games: Buy 2 Get 1 Free + Free Shipping!!!

8. Gamecube beats XBOX in Europe despite free games with XBOX

9. Can someon tell me where you can get a free controller and a game

10. Did anybody get the free games and the controller M$ promised??

11. free games and controller!