Xbox Live Players Targeted In Denial-of-Service Attacks

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Xbox Live Players Targeted In Denial-of-Service Attacks

Posted by Soulskill on Friday February 20, 2009 @06:24PM from the poor-sports dept.

The BBC reports on a growing trend where some Xbox Live players are launching denial-of-service attacks against those who beat them or otherwise irritate them in games. Quoting: "'The smart thing about these Xbox tools is that they do not attack the Xbox Live network itself,' [Chris Boyd, director of malware research at Facetime Communications said.] He said the tools work by exploiting the way that the Xbox Live network is set up. Game consoles connecting to the Xbox network send data via the net, and for that it needs an IP address. Even better, said Mr Boyd, games played via Xbox Live are not hosted on private servers. The tools mean anyone with a few dollars can boot rivals off Xbox Live. 'Instead,' he said, 'a lot of games on Xbox Live are hosted by players.' ... For $20 (£13) some Xbox Live hackers will remotely access a customer's PC and set up the whole system so it can be run any time they need it. Some offer low rates to add compromised machines to a botnet and increase the amount of data flooding a particular IP address."

77 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Xbox tools is right... by Rip+Dick · 2009-02-20 18:49 · Score: 0

...that's all I ever find on Xbox Live.
The victims are the winners.. by the_raptor · 2009-02-20 18:49 · Score: 4, Funny

When I beat someone so badly that they have to resort to those sorts of tactics, I feel like the winner. If that happened to me I would brag for years how I had beaten 1337d00d94 so badly that he had to DDOS me.

--

========
CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
1. Re:The victims are the winners.. by Anthony_Cargile · 2009-02-20 19:08 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  ...beaten 1337d00d94 so badly...
  Yep, I'd say that sounds about right.
  
  ...What? I get bored too!
2. Re:The victims are the winners.. by Bored+Grammar+Nazi · 2009-02-20 19:27 · Score: 0
  
  What does that have to do with your signature? Shouldn't you be telling yet another different story about it?
3. Re:The victims are the winners.. by Davemania · 2009-02-20 19:27 · Score: 1
  
  I rather take the real victory than an imaginary moral victory.
4. Re:The victims are the winners.. by dukeofurl01 · 2009-02-20 19:33 · Score: 1
  
  That would be great if you could determine who was DDoSing you.
5. Re:The victims are the winners.. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-20 19:35 · Score: 0
  
  He didn't even say anything about his signature... are you a delusional bored grammar nazi?
6. Re:The victims are the winners.. by hairyfeet · 2009-02-20 22:15 · Score: 2
  
  I wouldn't, because after awhile it gets irritating as hell. That is why I quiet playing online games, as i would stomp some asshat who thought his "Elite" Shadowcat couldn't lose in Mechwarrior and when i moped the floor with my Atlas I would end up with either a DDOS or him and his little buddies "suicide running" me every time I got on. Remember that if some of these guys get pissy at you they can make it their life's work to fuck with you. I would go for a week or more at a time unable to do anything in the game at all. Not to mention your ISP tends to get cranky when the network is being slowed to a crawl because some asshat doesn't like you. I had some many conversations with guys at the ISP before I quit playing online games it wasn't funny, and it was all thanks to asshats.
  If MSFT has any brains left there at all they will find a way to put a screeching halt to this and quick. While I have never been big on the consoles from what my friends say Xbox Live is what makes the 360 worth having. If too many of their customers get stomped into the ground with DDOS attacks and end up spending more time dealing with their ISP and trying to deal with BS than actually playing it could really hurt their sales. And with the economy as it is bad press like this is something they should be really trying to avoid. Most folks want to come home after a hard day and have fun, not deal with this griefer crap.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
7. Re:The victims are the winners.. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-20 22:30 · Score: 0
  
  you can win further, you can find the operators of these botnets from trying to find the tool tutorials on youtube that offer you a download of the tools to do it yourself. What you really download is the trojan to join you to the botnet and compromise your machine. Just take the trojan file and weed out the hex of their dyndns or no-ip host and resolve it and you will find the operator of the that specific group of bots. Then the real fun begins.
8. Re:The victims are the winners.. by Kalriath · 2009-02-20 22:43 · Score: 1
  
  I don't get it. What the hell does that have to do with anything?
  
  --
  For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
9. Re:The victims are the winners.. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-20 23:06 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  He's commenting on the fact that so many morons use names that either have:
  A reference to being "elite" or "leet", to use the script kiddie parlance.
  A reference to some sort of mind altering substance, probably put in place as a pathetic show of how "cool" or "mature" the person thinks they are.
  A reference to genitalia or sexual practices, used either for "shock" value or, like the above, as a sad little show of how "cool" or "mature" the person thinks they are.
  A reference to a character, title, group or place within the Star Wars universe.
  A number within the name, which most likely traces its roots back to the user being a current or former AOL customer and/or an unimaginative philistine and/or a lazy wart on the ass of life.
  Or all of the above. For example 1337stoner92, drunkpussyeater16, darthmarijuana483, etc.
10. Re:The victims are the winners.. by nog_lorp · 2009-02-21 01:16 · Score: 1
  
  Dammit AC, did you just use the phrase "unimaginative philistine"?
11. Re:The victims are the winners.. by ciderVisor · 2009-02-21 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for that explanation. I'm glad I wasn't the only one to have a 'Whoosh' moment, there.
  
  --
  Squirrel!
12. Re:The victims are the winners.. by Lumpy · 2009-02-21 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  There are so many little ankle biters on XboxLive that if you intimidate them with your gamerscore they boot you from their public games. Or drop their server when they lose, etc...
  It does not surprise me that some of these losers are such bad sports they do this crap. It's why I stopped playing any public games and only play private games with friends I know. Smaller pool of opponents but less of the losers.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
13. Re:The victims are the winners.. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-21 07:20 · Score: 0
  
  Redundant, I know. I was simply trying to hammer the point across that many of these people have so little creative ability that they wouldn't be able to make a lens flare with a copy of Photoshop and a tutorial about making lens flares.
14. Re:The victims are the winners.. by im_thatoneguy · 2009-02-21 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  Just a thought... but wouldn't it be relatively easy to prosecute the offending twerp? If they aren't using a botnet then finding their own IP address should be pretty trivial.
  If my internet went out for 2 days and I could attribute it to a DDOS attack and I could determine the IP address I would happily sue the little asshat's parents into grounding his sorry ass for a few years.
15. Re:The victims are the winners.. by nog_lorp · 2009-02-21 12:52 · Score: 1
  
  That's why they should use the GIMP Lens Flare filter!
16. Re:The victims are the winners.. by BikeHelmet · 2009-02-21 19:04 · Score: 1
  
  Dude, I totally owned so many people at Warcraft III. After months of win after win after win, I suddenly found my email address signed up to several thousand newsletters.
  It taught me two things:
  1) I rock.
  2) Don't match your username to your email address.
17. Re:The victims are the winners.. by Ihmhi · 2009-02-22 02:16 · Score: 1
  
  I have thus developed the ultimate gamertag thanks to your tips:
  1337Qu1G0nC0ck5t0n3r69
  
  --
  Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
$20? You cang et it for free by SupremoMan · 2009-02-20 18:53 · Score: 3, Funny

Just submit a story full of buzzwords to Slashdot, and instead of linking article link your victims IP address. The editors won't check the link, and your victim will be slashdoted for a while.
1. Re:$20? You cang et it for free by Rip+Dick · 2009-02-20 18:56 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  An ingenious evil plan, I admit. But, your one flaw was assuming people will actually RTFA...
2. Re:$20? You cang et it for free by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-20 18:57 · Score: 0
  
  This wont work. Everyone knows no one on slashdot RTFA's.
3. Re:$20? You cang et it for free by artor3 · 2009-02-20 19:09 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  And yet the links always get slashdotted. I suppose it's like New York City, where no drives on account of all the traffic.
4. Re:$20? You cang et it for free by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-20 19:13 · Score: 0
  
  just hope that kdawson is the editor that reads it first, that guy will publish anything
5. Re:$20? You cang et it for free by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-20 19:23 · Score: 0
  
  Or like your mom, where no one wants to fuck her on account of all the STDs.
6. Re:$20? You cang et it for free by Tatisimo · 2009-02-21 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  But we all open them in a different tab to be read later, along with all other 40 something tabs.
  
  --
  Give Kashyyyk back to the Wookies
7. Re:$20? You cang et it for free by sortius_nod · 2009-02-21 22:16 · Score: 1
  
  I don't normally laugh at this kind of childish crap... but today I did. Bravo to you sir, bravo indeed.
This is interesting... by Anthony_Cargile · 2009-02-20 18:59 · Score: 2, Interesting

I was just playing Halo 3 today on Xbox Live(hey, I get bored too), and I'd say 92% of the people I played were what sounded like 10-12 year-olds. One pronounced another person's gamertag, XdamnedsoldierX, "ecks damm-ed soul-digger"[sic], and after reading TFA I could only think: "So, the new conductors of DDoS attacks these days are no longer the smart, possibly disgruntled computer engineering majors of the 80's and 90's, but prepubescent kids who can't even pronounce words like 'damned' (despite using it online since mommy's not home) and 'soldier".

But from what this says, they can still be considered "script kiddies", since they still seem to be relying on the work of others to accomplish these misdeeds. Whatever happened to the good 'ole 80's and 90's when you had to actually know something about the trade in order to accomplish something like this? I'm not justifying it, but come on, whatever happened to working towards something? I don't remember the movie "WarGames"'s plot including the act of downloading some program to do his work.
1. Re:This is interesting... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-20 19:05 · Score: 0
  
  Against team killers this might just work...
  But seriously it is all thanks to a simple IP address and insecurity. I myself respect those that get bored with the game so invent other mental means, but if its just prepackaged programs as said script kiddies are using then they themselves should download confiker with their programs, just for justice.
2. Re:This is interesting... by Renraku · 2009-02-20 20:15 · Score: 1
  
  Ever play World of Warcraft on a PvP server? Often times someone will attack you and either kill you and move on, or if you kill them, they'll go and get their lv80 and stand on your corpse for a half-hour.
  It would be like someone challenging you to a wrestling match and upon you winning, they'd go get their 30 year old brother to step in for them.
  
  --
  Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
3. Re:This is interesting... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-21 01:37 · Score: 0
  
  What are you talking about? DDoS attacks have always been the realm of 12 year olds. Trust me, I was 12 in 1995...
4. Re:This is interesting... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-21 09:01 · Score: 0
  
  Whatever happened to the good 'ole 80's and 90's...
  You're 22 years old. You know jack shit about the 'ole 80's and 90's, as you were still wet behind your ears.
5. Re:This is interesting... by Cheapy · 2009-02-21 10:22 · Score: 1
  
  You must be getting all the wrong players. Most of the people I hear talking on Halo 3 online sound much older than 10-12.
  
  --
  Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
6. Re:This is interesting... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-21 11:03 · Score: 0
  
  look at his repertoire on his website - I think he's more than covered the technology of the 80's and 90's. Now, whether or not he's used an altair or UNIVAC before remains a different question.
7. Re:This is interesting... by Reapy · 2009-02-23 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  Nothing new here. Playing on Kali servers I remember when "winnuke" got discovered and passed around. We all had fun for a week or two nailing each other with it. There will always be script kiddies! :)
can come in handy by enter+to+exit · 2009-02-20 19:05 · Score: 1

Most gamers wouldn't kick out someone for beating them
It defeats the purpose of the game
However this could come in handy for suspected bots and cheaters
1. Re:can come in handy by Exawatt · 2009-02-20 19:19 · Score: 1
  
  Most gamers wouldn't kick out someone for beating them
  You have obviously not played Halo 3.
2. Re:can come in handy by KDR_11k · 2009-02-20 19:28 · Score: 1
  
  Only for people who play the game to challenge themselves, not to boost their e-peen
  
  --
  Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
3. Re:can come in handy by The+Moof · 2009-02-20 19:44 · Score: 1
  
  If you're handing a trouncing out to someone, they can decide that you're not allowed to play. And alot of matchmaking/ranking systems have started taking 'incomplete' games into account, some making them worse than losing. So that kid effectively didn't lose, you did when he DDoS'd you right out of the game. It's the win-by-forfeit thing.
  
  More likely, they're just griefers getting their kicks off pissing you off.
  
  If you don't think XBL is full of asshats who would do this, just look up blocking in Left 4 Dead on Live. It's an exploit where the Infected can barricade the survivors so they can no longer progress forward to the end of the level. The survivors usually defend in a small room, and the infected can't do any damage. The result is a stalemate, and no one wins. Usually, everyone just ends up quitting. Despite that fact, you still see it in significant amount of the games.
4. Re:can come in handy by FreeFull · 2009-02-20 22:24 · Score: 1
  
  The fair thing is only to DoS them back straight away next time you end up playing against them.
  
  --
  No ascii art.
Private servers by VGPowerlord · 2009-02-20 19:05 · Score: 1

"Even better, said Mr Boyd, games played via Xbox Live are not hosted on private servers."
Say what? The way I understood it, Xbox Live Gold is a subscription service because Microsoft owns and operates the game servers.

--
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
1. Re:Private servers by Exawatt · 2009-02-20 19:17 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The servers allowing you to find each player are Microsoft's. The servers you play on are the player's own Xboxes (or is it Xboxs?). Some games may not use this method, but many games (e.g. Halo 3) do. Proof would be when the game host leaves, and everyone has to wait while the game says "selecting new host." Microsoft servers determine the game host as the one with the best connection to the other players, but from that point the game is played directly between the involved players.
  
  It should be noted that many games work this way. Not just Xbox games. Not just FPS games. This "tactic" is nothing new. It's just a DoS targetted at an opponent.
2. Re:Private servers by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-20 19:18 · Score: 0
  
  Ah ha ha ha ha ha. 0wn3d!
  Sincerely,
  M$
3. Re:Private servers by Rip+Dick · 2009-02-20 19:27 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Xboxes (or is it Xboxs?)
  Xboxen?
4. Re:Private servers by jovis81 · 2009-02-20 19:40 · Score: 1
  
  Microsoft again elects to go with the cheap and insecure way of doing things. My belief is that if you pay for a service you should fully understand what you are getting. In this case I believe all you are paying for is matchmaking. This is the reason I switched from Xbox to PS3, I know Xbox Live is a better service but it is not worth the monthly fees without having private servers. Now we know why Microsoft's stock is finally tanking. Simple solution you pay for a service with private hosting don't pay for ones without it. This is yet to happen with game consoles (from what I know), but it is already happening on PC games (PC Game Cost Game Console Cost).
5. Re:Private servers by jovis81 · 2009-02-20 19:45 · Score: 1
  
  Slashdot didn't include the "less than" symbol I had for the "PC Game Cost Game Console Cost" string.
6. Re:Private servers by The+Moof · 2009-02-20 19:51 · Score: 1
  
  The games (usually) use a peer-to-peer system for matches, designating one of the players as the match host. The systems run on Live's network (using Live's Authentication and procotols, etc), which is what you pay the subscription fee to access.
7. Re:Private servers by snowraver1 · 2009-02-21 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  I have a feeling that MS helps with the voice too. In halo games, for example, I think that the talking player sends data to MS who essentially multicasts it to the other players. Just a hunch.
  
  --
  Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
8. Re:Private servers by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-22 11:29 · Score: 0
  
  Xboxes (or is it Xboxs?)
  Xboxen?
  Xboxii
Hyperbole? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-20 19:23 · Score: 0

Heh, not particularly surprising, and seems a bit blown out of proportion. I don't know what would contribute to this being more of a problem than it might be for PC games, and I really don't think it's a problem for them.
I only got DoS'd off once when I was playing Tribes 2 a few years ago. Apparently I joined some server where a fellow was waiting for someone to arrive so he could impress his friend by knocking me offline ("look at his ping!"). Things turned around pretty quickly when I noticed he had decided to use his own dedicated server box to take me down :>
1. Re:Hyperbole? by ptx0 · 2009-02-20 23:21 · Score: 1
  
  And? What happened next?
2. Re:Hyperbole? by Ash-Fox · 2009-02-21 00:12 · Score: 1
  
  Heh, not particularly surprising, and seems a bit blown out of proportion. I don't know what would contribute to this being more of a problem than it might be for PC games, and I really don't think it's a problem for them.
  PC versions of games like Left 4 dead, Team Fortress 2 and pretty much every other game have dedicated servers which aren't hosted on the player's machine. xbox does not, xbox also has a larger 'lag' issue since games aren't hosted in proper colocation facilities etc.
  
  I only got DoS'd off once when I was playing Tribes 2 a few years ago.
  Never heard of that game before.
  
  --
  Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
3. Re:Hyperbole? by snowraver1 · 2009-02-21 04:25 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Actually L4D does have dedicated XBOX Live servers.
  
  --
  Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
Are you the Anthony Cargile by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-20 21:20 · Score: 0

that sucked my dick in college?
1. Re:Are you the Anthony Cargile by DavoMan · 2009-02-21 01:54 · Score: 1
  
  Your mother is not a video games console. And, stay on topic please.
  
  This article doesn't seem to raise an eyebrow with me. DDOSing has been around for yonks - the application layer/user network doesn't really matter.
  
  Anyone who has been on IRC knows that DDOSing is as old as the hills - and the previous poster's mom :)
  
  --
  Whats the harm in yelling 'Computer, end program!'? You could be living in Star Trek! Go on.. give it a try.
2. Re:Are you the Anthony Cargile by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-21 06:56 · Score: 0
  
  You fail.
Re:Private servers - Scalability not cheapness by WarwickRyan · 2009-02-20 21:25 · Score: 1

Erm, it has nothing to do with "cheapness".
Hosting in this manner has two advantages:
1. It's far more scalable than using Microsoft servers. Microsoft just need to add an new login server to increase capacity. If they were to be 'host' for everything, they'd have to upgrade far sooner. Result would be far more downtime on Live around the holidays.
2. With smart player matching, it can also be much faster. If all players are from the same region, but the servers from Microsoft are in an different region, then there'll be far less lag.
It probably has environmental benefits too: Microsoft'd have to keep lots more servers running 24/7 to provide hosting, whereas now they don't require any more resources (the Xboxes are all on in either situation).
Re:FRIST!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-20 21:33 · Score: 0

This whole page is in desperate need of moderation, because (like the parent) the trolls are excessively bad, and not all are anonymous cowards for once. Please, mods, do this page a justice!
Took them long enough. by Detaer · 2009-02-20 21:53 · Score: 4, Funny

XBL has now just caught up to PC gaming in 1995.
The new XBox 360 logo by David+Gerard · 2009-02-20 22:52 · Score: 2, Funny

You'll know it happens to you when your box's logo turns to one of these. Instantly recognisable!

--
http://rocknerd.co.uk
How did they determine it was a DOS? by infonography · 2009-02-20 23:22 · Score: 1

Not that DOS isn't already an obvious trademark of Microsoft....
If it's flaky and broken do you really need to look outside? I am smelling something fishy here and I think it's Red Herring.

--
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
1. Re:How did they determine it was a DOS? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-21 05:21 · Score: 0
  
  DOS, DoS: one is an operating system, the other a malicious attack. Which is which? If you can't tell, you MUST be new here.
2. Re:How did they determine it was a DOS? by LordSnooty · 2009-02-22 01:55 · Score: 1
  
  Genuine statement, joke: one is a genuine statement, the other a joke. Which is which? If you can't tell, you MUST be new here.
3. Re:How did they determine it was a DOS? by infonography · 2009-02-23 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  some forms of humor are lost on some people and most of them seem to read slashdot.
  
  --
  Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
FTFA: by Datamonstar · 2009-02-21 00:54 · Score: 1

Even better, said Mr Boyd, games played via Xbox Live are not hosted on private servers. ... 'Instead,' he said, 'a lot of games on Xbox Live are hosted by players.' ...

Then what the FUCK are those players PAYING for, then? I thought there could not be another reason I consider the Xbox and everything that it brought with it was the toxic bane of gaming as we once knew it. There is no fairness in that at all. Silver service included. you're still giving away part of your oneline identity, as seen here by these "hacks," even if you only use the free service and I don't think it can even play all the games. Microsoft is failing their customers yet again and unlike the Windows situation, a LOT of them don't even realize it.

--
The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
1. Re:FTFA: by Shrike82 · 2009-02-21 08:45 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  I'm risking being modded down here, but to hell with it. Blatant and foundless attacks on Microsoft are getting a bit tiresome really.
  
  A lot of games use this model for organising online matches. Someone above made some great points about why this can be a positive, rather than a negative, way of doing things. Clearly you haven't RTFA as your online identity is no more at risk than if you were using a PC to browse the web. IP address is about the extent of it.
  
  The players are paying for the rights to use Microsoft servers to find other players, to message each other, to access free game demos and videos (also available to free players), and a whole host of other benefits. XBox Live is widely regarded as being much better than Sony's version. Maybe you should level your grudge gun at some other aspect of Microsoft (and in some areas I fully admit they're doing a poor job), rather than using the somewhat flimsy excuse that having players host games instead of some central server is a bad thing.
  
  --
  You can advertise in this sig from as little as £99.99 a month!
2. Re:FTFA: by dougisfunny · 2009-02-22 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  A lot of games use that model? Such as what?
  Warcraft III? Starcraft?
  Any MMOs have central game servers. Any recent FPS games have hosted servers.
  As stated in another post, Xbox Live is basically catching up to 1995 PC gaming.
  
  --
  This is not the funny you're looking for.
3. Re:FTFA: by Datamonstar · 2009-02-22 13:28 · Score: 1
  
  I would agree if not for what the previous poster said about most current tech games hosting games on private servers. That's the #1 best way to prevent cheating, after-all, to host all sensitive content serverside. Also, I would agree if not for the fact that the PS3 has FREE online network. It is free and it still manages to provide all the features of Live. the PS2 had a FREE network in Japan as well, but most companies hosted their own servers for games and simply removed those features from the US port of those games. Most of Capcom's fighting games had online play in Japan, for instance. Microsoft has everyone fooled into believing they have to pay them to play online. This is such a farce. This is my argument against Microsoft,and it has nothing to do with the details of this DOS attack. It's just the fact that you get to pay for it.
  
  --
  The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
4. Re:FTFA: by Reapy · 2009-02-23 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  One of the reasons I don't subscribe to xbox live gold is that in the pc gaming world, the precident has already been set. Starting early on with ipx --> tpc emulators like kali, and most notably battle.net arriving on the scene, just about every major game has FREE online play. No reason you should need an xbox live subscription.
  Even games like battlefield where you have "official servers" it is still someone paying a fee to EA to be "official" hosting on their own machines. The cost of the player is nothing, and should be nothing.
  Perhaps there is some reason for it. I can appreciate that I'm sure most of the net code for a company is already written in, and interoperability between games using xbox live is probably a very nice feature to have, yet, I do not see why players should have to shoulder this cost.
Hmm by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-21 02:41 · Score: 0

Paying a hacker to access your computer and install something sounds like a very bad idea...
1. Re:Hmm by palegray.net · 2009-02-21 18:15 · Score: 1
  
  Exposing your credit card information to an online criminal, for any reason at all, seems like a pretty awful idea to me.
  
  --
  512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
Re:Private servers - Scalability not cheapness by Ash-Fox · 2009-02-21 08:26 · Score: 1

2. With smart player matching, it can also be much faster. If all players are from the same region, but the servers from Microsoft are in an different region, then there'll be far less lag.
I get less latency from a colocation facility in the States with a dedicated server using a tier 1 connection than someone on the same ISP I'm on, in the UK hosting 6 people.
Of course, we're ignoring the fact that Microsoft's xbox content distribution network has servers in every region.

--
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Ugh... by trytoguess · 2009-02-21 08:29 · Score: 1

I bitch that Nintendo's friend code policy is far too draconic, yet I see shit like this and I get powerful pangs of doubt...
1. Re:Ugh... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-21 08:56 · Score: 0
  
  having to pay for matchmaking without dedicated servers where there are typically annoying small children playing is not a good thing either
  and this is why using your personal computer to play the video games is the best
Re:Private servers - Scalability not cheapness by Allador · 2009-02-21 11:58 · Score: 1

The challenge isnt MS (or any company with the volume of XBL) having enough capacity at any one time, its in how fast they can grow their capacity.
Look at last christmas, when they couldnt keep up in capacity growth when CoD4 came out and everyone was home playing on the holidays.
That was just them hosting the login servers.
Imagine how bad it would have been if they not only hosted the login & matchmaking servers, but had to host reflectors/multicasters to host 2-12x the amount of traffic of every xbox player in the world (or region).
Re:Private servers - Scalability not cheapness by Ash-Fox · 2009-02-21 21:53 · Score: 1

Look at last christmas, when they couldnt keep up in capacity growth when CoD4 came out and everyone was home playing on the holidays.
Obviously their design and capacity arrangements were flawed, despite getting paid by all those users - the users got nothing.
They should of had the methods that PC users use, since they can't do it right.

--
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.