Microsoft Hopes for Matchmaking in all 360 Games

1up reports on comments from Phil Spencer, the Head of Game Development for Microsoft Game Studios. Speaking with the news organization at DICE Spencer clarified that, ideally, all 360 games should have matchmaking services ala Halo 2. Why didn't Epic's Gears of War ship with the feature? "The Epic scenario and why we don't have that code in Gears of War is really more of a scheduling issue than a 'We weren't going to share the code with them, or help them add that feature to the game' because it's clearly a great feature in online shooting play. For us, it was just 'could we get this done on time in order to get the game to come out when it needed to come out.'" Spencer does say that they have no problems sharing Halo 2's matchmaking code, and that future first-party titles should definitely offer it. Gears may even offer it one day, via a patch to the game.

Comments

What is wrong with Game Lobbies?

[vertinox]

Is it me or maybe I just don't play online console games enough, but why do most of the console companies have aversion to lobby game rooms or allowing dedicated servers on 3rd party hardware?

For example, all DS games have no lobby and if you want to meet someone in specific you have to use the friend codes. Otherwise... You use the match making program and find some random person who you can't communicate with.

Re:What is wrong with Game Lobbies?

[El_Muerte_TDS]

Friends(TM)

The next target for Microsoft's embrace-and-extend strategy

Re:What is wrong with Game Lobbies?

[zarthrag]

In a word:

Liability.

No one wants to be reponsible for allowing some child predator to stalk 13yo boys via a game lobby. Do you want *your* kids meeting talking to DrStr4ng3rD4ng3r? Granted, that's likely somewhat possible already. It'd be easy with lobbies, though - since you could stalk.

Re:What is wrong with Game Lobbies?

[Saige]

The idea isn't to have lobbies.

The idea is to stop doing things the way they've always been done just because they've been done that way. The current server list method is a decade old, and the process of getting into a game of Gears of War is effectively no different than getting into a game of Quake.

It's about focusing on what's key to the experience, and being willing to change things. That's what Halo 2 matchmaking did - it's no longer about wading through a list of servers to find a game that you want to join, only to find that they've already started, or that the host is kicking people who aren't their friends, or that the game settings have changed. It's about saying "I want to play this type of game, with this group of friends", and letting the console do the work to find other people who want to play the same way, who have similar skill levels, and then letting the game choose host based on who has the best connection.

With Halo 2, I could load up the game, go into the Rumble Pit playlist, hit start, and be assured that within a couple minutes I was playing a free-for-all game, with enough people, people that would challenge but not horribly slaughter me, with a very slim chance of any network issues. There's no old-style server browser and lobby system that can guarantee that.

The ideal console matchmaking system duplicates that experience. The ability to play with friends as a team, against people of similar skill levels, and letting the console take care of the stuff that the players shouldn't have to worry about so players can get into games as quickly as possible and spent their time playing.

It doesn't mean completely eliminating game lobbies, it just means reworking them to fit this type of setup. Halo had brief pre-game lobbies, post-game lobbies where everyone can chat, and between games you and your friends can sit in a party lobby and chat all you want.

Re:What is wrong with Game Lobbies?

[Sibko]

I remember when Bungie first announced their matchmaking system. A lot of people got in a hissy fit over what they thought was a stupid idea. Fast forward to today, and you couldn't possibly convince a Halo 2 player to go back to the PC gamer's lobby system.

The matchmaking system in Halo 2 might not be entirely appropriate for use on the PC - but there should be almost no excuse for why it isn't used on a console game. It's almost as mandatory as an FPS having guns.

Re:What is wrong with Game Lobbies?

[Saige]

I'll tell why it's not used on other Xbox Live games.

Bungie put a lot of work and time into developing that system. Most game developers aren't willing to commit that level of resources to that level of multiplayer, when there are much easier methods of putting together a standard lobby system.

Until it starts really being a clear hit against a title to have the standard lobby system, it's going to be hard to get them to stop. I don't see any game reviews in magazines even making much of a deal about it.

Re:What is wrong with Game Lobbies?

[dootbran]

Can't agree more. I remember being somewhat confused as to why I couldn't just host or join a game like I had in RS3 when I first started Halo 2. A couple months later I couldn't imagine playing an online game any another way. Halo 2's matchmaking system wasn't prefect (some of the playlists had their 'quirks' from time to time) but it definitely had the right idea. There have actually been a few games over the last couple years that I haven't purchased because I knew they didn't have a quality matchmaking system, most recently Lost Planet.

Party based matchmaking should have been a requirement for all team based online games since the launch of the 360. I expected CoD, PDZ, GRAW and Gears to have had this implemented, needless to say this is one thing I have been disappointed with on the 360.

Meh

[Greg_D]

People generally make their own matches in GoW, and it works just fine. Every once in a while you'll run across some people whose skills don't quite match up, but once you've played the game for an appreciable amount of time, you can get a very nice game going with 8 highly skilled players in very short order.

Besides, there's no amount of automated matchmaking that will help you automatically filter out insufferable asses or hyperactive children. You're better off just playing enough until you know enough good players.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

"People generally make their own matches in GoW, and it works just fine"

Uh, no.

GoW online is a complete mess. No one even bothers to play ranked matches it's so bad. Everyone I play with has gone back to H2. One just has to spend a little time in any GoW forum to see just how bitter and disappointed people are with the game.

Re:Meh

[twistedsymphony]

I'd like to disagree... on all accounts.

"Match Making" in addition to matching you in skill also filters out anyone you've previously marked as someone you'd like to avoid. Without match making, I have to continually re-encounter those "insufferable asses" or "hyperactive children" that I've already found and identified as undesirable. And while it's impossible to filter them all out, I've found that there are a limited number of them that game the same time as me, play the same games and game modes, and are of similar skill. Once you manage to get 20-30 people on that list it becomes a rare occurrence that you encounter them... of course that all goes out the window completely if the system isn't doing the match making for you.

As for making your own matches "working just fine"... sure, if you're playing unranked. I have a group of friends, we want to be on the same team and play against another group that's similar in skill. You know... like a professional clan. There is NO easy way to do that, not even close. Basically you have to message everyone on your team to search for some specific game criteria then hope the pick the right room out of the list (and hope it's not full up by the time they get there) then if by some miracle they do manage to find the room there's a high probability that you wont all be on the same team. That is not even close to acceptable for a AAA, first party, killer app that supposedly exemplifies Xbox Live's superiority. Sorry but in a straight up ease of use and requisite feature comparison Resistance blows GoW out of the water (and I loathe Sony). Not to mention that "match making" isn't some elusive code that Bungie has in a vault somewhere, it's built right into the friggin XDK, and while it wasn't there when Halo 2 was made, it's been there LONG before GoW arrived.

The features missing from GoW aren't just annoying, it's embarrassing.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

'The features missing from GoW aren't just annoying, it's embarrassing.'

Gears is the first game I've ever had absolutely no doubt that the reviews were outright paid for. It is funny to think how bad the reviews for Gears would have been like if H3 had shipped at the same time and Microsoft just let the game get reviewed on its own merits - or lack of.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

You know... like a professional clan.

"Professional Clan"? I'm assuming you're older than 12, so it's possible Microsoft was just trying to save your life by making it difficult to turn your life into something this sad.

Re:Meh

[powerlord]

Gears is the first game I've ever had absolutely no doubt that the reviews were outright paid for. It is funny to think how bad the reviews for Gears would have been like if H3 had shipped at the same time and Microsoft just let the game get reviewed on its own merits - or lack of.

Of course, if H3 had shipped at the same time, MS would have felt they had something to counter the PS3 launch.

Or perhaps MS knew that GoW was missing features, but felt the need to rush it out, instead of rushing out H3, since a buggy/embarrassing H3 is something they can't afford to let happen, while a buggy/embarrassing GoW they obviously can.

Re:Meh

[twistedsymphony]

"Professional Clan"? I'm assuming you're older than 12, so it's possible Microsoft was just trying to save your life by making it difficult to turn your life into something this sad.

Perhaps "professional" was too serious of a description. Though I see no difference in simply wanting to game regularly and competitively with a team, it's not unlike belonging to a local bowling league, taking your sports car to the drag strip, or playing amateur sports.

If you want to do these things competitively, not as a career but as a more serious hobby, you typically use the tools that the professionals use. GoW doesn't work for the professionals, it doesn't work for the amateurs, and it's barely passable for the casual gamer who just wants to play with their friends.

Re:Meh

[dootbran]

I'm not the biggest fan of Gears adversarial multiplayer but I did think that the single player and coop modes were done fairly well. The problem with reviews currently is that the multiplayer review gets done before the game gets released and none of the reviewers have a chance to actually experience what the game is like when you're not playing with 7 people that you know and are in a relatively close geographic proximity. Gears online is kinda fun and at least with me it was only after trying to deal with the numerous failed attempts to connect to servers and waiting ~10 minutes for rooms to fill up only to realize on match 7 that its was best of 21... and we were already down 6-1... elegance is not a word that I would expect to be used to describe this online system.

The single player game probably did deserve ~9.5, the multiplayer game deserved a 6 (I can't play it but I'll give it a point or two because its been the top XBL game since release, so someone clearly can). I would think an ~8.5 for the whole package would be fair.

Re:Meh

[twistedsymphony]

I'd agree with your analysis of GoW. I'll be the first one to say that the actual gameplay and controls are fantastic. Gears plays like I'd expect a AAA shooter to play. while not the first game to use a cover system they are the first game to do it well IMO. and the Single player/co-op modes as you said are extremely enjoyable and very well done. I would have appreciated a little more depth to the story, even if it came in the form of a video at the beginning of the game but that's not a big deal.

Its simply the online play that is problematic and again it's not even the gameplay, or level design, those are both very solid IMO, it's all in the lobby, match making, and customization. Once you're in a game with the teams how you want them it's quite fun online, but unless you're prepared to go 19 rounds per game it's over as soon as it starts and you have to go back to jumping through fiery hoops to find your team mates and get the game setup again.

The game mechanics are solid, but playing online you spend more time setting up the match then you do actually playing, and once you're playing it usually isn't setup the way you were hoping.

Obviously

[Itchyeyes]

Seriously, their user base has been saying this for 2 and a half years now. Why are they just now coming to this realization? Microsoft keeps such tight control over XBL and has standards in place for just about every aspect of it. How is it then, that they certify so many games with flat out abysmal matchmaking systems? For a product that touts its online functionality as the primary feature over its competitors, Microsoft is essentially ignoring a huge portion of that experience.

Re:Obviously

[Saige]

Saying this now doesn't mean that the team's only coming to this realization now.

Why certify games with such bad multiplayer setups? Often because it's a matter of that game vs. no game. The higher the bar is for games that are going to be certified, the fewer number of games that are going to get published. And since a significant percentage of 360s aren't even connected to Xbox Live, there are plenty of gamers that are going to only care about the single player experience.

Besides, multiplayer done right is hard - otherwise we'd see a lot more that had done a really good job.

Matchmaking

[UbuntuDupe]

I'm interested in matchmaking ... but not for games :-/

Re:Matchmaking

[reyalpdemannu]

Problem solved: February 12,2006; Microsoft(TM) releases Myspace for XBOX 360

Very telling quote

[gEvil (beta)]

For us, it was just 'could we get this done on time in order to get the game to come out when it needed to come out.'

Ah, so it wasn't about releasing the game with the features they thought it should have. It was about getting it out for sale by the date the marketing people had set.

Re:Very telling quote

[abigor]

Yeah, it's called "the software industry". This is 100% normal. Every piece of commercial software on earth is released in this manner. Marketing drives everything.

Re:Very telling quote

[gEvil (beta)]

I know, I know. I just like it when execs actually admit it. : p

Re:Very telling quote

[LoudMusic]

Ah, so it wasn't about releasing the game with the features they thought it should have. It was about getting it out for sale by the date the marketing people had set. I spent about a year at a small town news paper. One day, out of frustration, I asked my boss if it was more important that the paper be on time or of quality.

Without hesitation she said, "On time".

I was shocked. "You mean that we shouldn't wait five, ten minutes to actually have a page correct? That we care more about delivering something than delivering something we're proud of?"

"Yes."

A friend of mine dubbed the time we live in as The Microwave Generation. Everything has to be Now! Now! Now! and quality seems to have lost its hold on creativity.

Fortunately now I work for an advertising agency (how is this fortunate?) where quality does indeed matter. Nothing leaves the building without multiple peer reviews and the stamp of approval from the head boss man, who is in his own right a creative genius. We don't make crap ads here - we're proud of what we do.

Re:Very telling quote

[PingSpike]

Well, a newspaper is a pretty good example of where that thinking is right. I mean, when I read the paper everyday I quickly forget if had a typo or it was boring or something like that. But if it didn't even come that day? Well, that would really piss me off.

Re:Very telling quote

[Trojan35]

A business actually trying to make profit? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

Microsoft Extending monopoly to gaming

[Murrdox]

Am I the only one who sees this as an inappropriate attempt by Microsoft to extend their OS monopoly into the gaming market? Microsoft is already flexing this muscle by requiring that all games published under the "Games for Windows" brand are compatible with the X-Box 360 Controller. This seems to me like an attempt to force all PC Game publishers to make their games not only for Windows, but for the X-Box too. If you don't make your game X-Box compatible, well, you lose out on all that free "Games for Windows" marketing that Microsoft is paying for. I seem to remember Microsoft doing something similar with Internet Explorer a few years back that got them into a tad of legal trouble. Now, not only does Microsoft want all games to be X-Box compatible, but now they want all games to use their matchmaking service. It won't be long before Microsoft will be pushing for all PC Games to be compatible with X-Box live. I'm sure you X-Box fans would like this, but personally, I don't want Microsoft to be sticking their thumb into every single PC game that I play. It's bad enough that I have to play almost everything on Windows to begin with. If I were an anti-trust lawyer, I would have already sent Microsoft several warnings about where they're going with this. I think they're violating the spirit of their anti-trust settlement.

Re:Microsoft Extending monopoly to gaming

[cliffski]

no idea why you are modded flamebait. I agree with the general sentiment that I don't like microsoft dictating game design IN ANY WAY to the developers. This is why I am a PC developer and not a console one. I don't give a damn what Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo think about game design, its the developer and the designers job to work out what is cool, not the platform 'owner'.
I worked in the retail industry for 2 years on an xbox launch title, similar to speedball, financed by microsoft. After 2 years they canned it, and said "all games should have a targeting cursor, you know...like halo." I'm pretty certain if will wright was making sim city for microsoft they would can it for 'not being enough like halo'.
Fuck halo.
It's a good game, but it is not the ONLY flipping game.
If Microsoft want to rebadge their games machine "the Halo 360" then go for it, just don't kid anyone that they are supporting innovative and experimental new games, when they clearly just want lots of identikit halo clones.
Has it ever occurred to someone at microsoft that supporting a controller that the game isnt designed for might negatively impact the game design? first that, now a dictat about multiplayer interfaces. What next? an approved list of character names? maybe ever game will have to have voice-overs in the same clichéd butch style? maybe all games will have to use bump mapping? or HDR lighting?
never let marketing droids influence game design.

Really?

[Itchyeyes]

Really? I'm sorry, I don't even know where to start. Xbox Live is not without its share of problems, but Sony is a very, very long ways from "teaching Microsoft how to do online right".

Re:Really?

[C0rinthian]

why is a 40-player match a requirement of 'fun'?

Re:Really?

[trdrstv]

why is a 40-player match a requirement of 'fun'?

It isn't strictly a requirement but can enhance the experiance. Think of it like sex. 1 on 1 is fun. 4 on 4 can be more fun. Then there's the 40 person equivalent of 'last one standing'...

Re:Really?

[C0rinthian]

Personally, I don't like being teamed up with total strangers. I like being grouped with my friends. I don't generally have 20 friends available at the same time to game. Having 4 is a common occurance. So Halo 2 multiplayer is very accomodating. Basically, having 40-player matches is not an incentive to me, if anything it's another reason to avoid the game. Thats just the possibility for even more asshats ruining the game at once.

The point is: Your personal preferences don't mean shit, and don't determine the superiority of one thing over another.

Re:Really?

[trdrstv]

Your personal preferences ... don't determine the superiority of one thing over another.

Dude, I never said it did. Looks like you replyed to the wrong post. Mine was a joke.

Re:Really?

[C0rinthian]

Bah, I was still thinking of the parent. Thats what I get for being distracted by work.

What good is matchmaking?

[CokeBear]

What good is matchmaking if the guys outnumber the girls 100 to 1? (or even 20-1)

Re:What good is matchmaking?

[the_B0fh]

well, you get some very busy girls then....

or people pretending to be girls...

Awww...

[DrEldarion]

Just in time for Valentine's Day, too. How thoughtful, Microsoft!

find me a find... catch me a catch...

I Hate The Smell of Fanboy in the Morning

[Petersko]

Every review I've read of Sony's online experience carried some variation of "tacked-on and unpolished".

Have the suddenly patched it into glorious perfection?

Re:Sony Teaching Microsoft How To Do Onlight Right

[EveryNickIsTaken]

40 players with absolutely no lag or frame rate drops. When there's only a handful of people accessing the server, I'd certainly hope there would be no lag.

Re:Sony Teaching Microsoft How To Do Onlight Right

[Dogtanian]

No idiotic fees just for the privilege of playing - milking cash out players for online shouldn't be a way to hide the high cost of your console like Microsoft does with the 250 dollars they charge people to play over the life of the console on top of the 400 dollar base price. Dumb Microsoft. Dumb. Assuming MS's aim is to make money (which it is, obviously), and assuming that they successfully "hide the high cost of [their] console" and manage to get more money out of consumers this way, there's nothing "dumb" about it.

It's only dumb if it's unsuccessful.

Re:Sony Teaching Microsoft How To Do Onlight Right

[gamer4Life]

[blockquote]Assuming MS's aim is to make money (which it is, obviously), and assuming that they successfully "hide the high cost of [their] console" and manage to get more money out of consumers this way, there's nothing "dumb" about it.[/blockquote]

Yes that's right. It's only the fanboys that say that Microsoft's console is significantly cheaper than the PS3 that are dumb. They've fallen for marketing tactics and haven't taken into account the total cost of a system.

Re:Sony Teaching Microsoft How To Do Onlight Right

[powerlord]

Microsoft better be providing servers for Bungie otherwise the game is going to get killed in comparison.

Nah. Its cheaper for MS to pay for really good reviews than to actually compete (see Vista vs. OSX :) ).

MS is modular. Buy what you want. PS3 = inclusive.

[trdrstv]

Yes that's right. It's only the fanboys that say that Microsoft's console is significantly cheaper than the PS3 that are dumb. They've fallen for marketing tactics and haven't taken into account the total cost of a system.

Nope. MS, and Sony simply went seperate routes. The 360 is Modular, where the PS3 is all inclusive.

Do you want HD-DVD? That's optional. Do you want online multiplayer? That's optional. Do you want a Harddrive? That's optional. Believe it or not there are people out there who do't want or need any of those...

Just like how the PS2 didn't have a HDD, a network adapter, multitap, etc... included. If you wanted it you paid extra. If you don't, you don't.

The PS3 simply went the other way and said 'You will have a Hard drive', 'you will have Blu-ray', etc... whether you want it or not and included it into the price.

Re:In other news

[Chris Burke]

Videogame player gets laid... BAM! Burn Karma burn...

With good reason, cus you're lying.

Re:MS is modular. Buy what you want. PS3 = inclusi

[gamer4Life]

Which is an advantage of the PS3. A hard drive and Blu-ray is good for gamers. It means games can take advantage of both knowing they will both be there.

Knowing that every gamer will have online for free is also a plus.

Unfortunately Microsoft fanboys don't seem to include XBox Live as part of the cost.

MS is modular. Buy what you want. PS3 = inclusive.

[trdrstv]

Which is an advantage of the PS3. A hard drive and Blu-ray is good for gamers. It means games can take advantage of both knowing they will both be there.

Not nessesarily. The use of Blu-Ray nessessitates a Hard drive due to it's low read speeds. If they could improve the throughput the added capacity will be a benefit, but as it stands now we have console games requiring multi-gig installs. That should not happen.

Unfortunately Microsoft fanboys don't seem to include XBox Live as part of the cost.

Going back to modularity. Live (Gold) isn't part of the cost if you don't want it. Many people seem content with Silver (which is free), or none at all.

Online gaming is important to some people, but not to others. After all, not Every PS2 owner bought the Network adapter...