http://blog.us.playstation.com/2007/08/08/behind-t...Apparently you can also set up your own dedicated server on a PS3 for Warhawk and even play on it using split-screen. Best of both worlds.

Somebody needs to send this over to the Live team, STAT. It's possible at present to have dedicated server type setups on Live. I think a couple of Xbox 1 games even allowed you to set up an Xbox as a dedicated server (Counterstrike and maybe Unreal)

In any event, it's not being done on Live on this scale and certainly not for free. Will be interested to see how they might fund it as it's sure to be costing a bomb. In game ads or micro-transactions for in-game content maybe?

Frontlines: Fuel of War -- dedicated servers on every platform!

1) Halo 3 is still peer to peer Heretic--it doesn't use dedicated servers for BTB (which is why it's big lag battle)--when has bungie ever claimed otherwise?

They may run their own match-making servers but that's hardly the same thing. FFOW looks to be the first 360 game with dedicated servers.. and 32 player support as well.

2) WarHawk looks cool.. and it's cheap. I'm getting the retail bundle though. Useful pack-in ftw.

Yep. But they don't want to compete with the PC, among other things...

I gotta love how people play down all of Sony's serious effort and just take a dump on PSN despite some serious advantages--fee free! No BLB here.

Just needs a killer app.

I wish I played the beta Jedi.. how is the non-warhawk gameplay? Does it compete with other online console games?

It's not inefficient when you've not sold 6m of them yet and have a bunch of them lying around which you've already paid for

PR stunt all the same it's still kinda cool.

Now this is PC fan drivel.

1. A multi-core PC with "lots of memory" isn't cheap -- and it ain't multipurpose to play PS3 games and server PS3 games.

2. PS3 games run fine on 256MB of system memory, so running the client of the same game shouldn't be an issue. Seeing as you won't be storing any audio, user interface, nor most art assets you just lowered the demand on system memory compared to the actual game.

3. Seeing as Cell can read from GDDR3 (and RSX can just copy content back and forth very quickly) the PS3 effectively has 512MB of system memory -- and it doesn't have to deal with the 30MB framebuffer either.

4. Show me a $600 PC that has a very fast multicore CPU, G70 level graphics, and BDR and can a) be used for high level gaming and b) server a secondary role as a server. Now show me one that can do that and serve 4 or 5 32-64 player servers at the same time...

Sony is in the console market, not the PC. Using the PS3 as a dedicated server makes a lot of sense. It relieves some data facillity needs from Sony's end -- hence keeping their service as cheap/free as possible -- and it allows users to control their own servers. And they are multipurpose. Your friend can bring his over for a LAN style party and serve (and do split screen on a PS3 or two), you can host games online, and when not in use if you have 2 PS3s you can a) use one as a media center / HD movie center or b) do system link with games like GT and such.

I know a *lot* of people who have extra PCs that run as single client game servers -- and they are only servers and cost more than a PS3. Heck, we even done that at my old office to play BF1942. If we could have got a PC that would have served well as a server as well as a gaming station and all the other stuff the PS3 does, yeah, that would have been way better.

...then how come we aren't running all of our PC server software off of consoles? :P