Why can't developers get multiplayer gaming right?

Dualshockers: Online multi-player gaming has, for me, completely eclipsed the single player experience so much so that it takes a rare gem such as God of War 3 to pull me away from my buddies on the virtual battlefield. That said, nearly every multi-player game I play has some kind of bizarre aspect built into it for no apparent reason other than to make it a pain in the ass to enjoy. Now I’m not talking about game-play mechanics here or unbalanced maps. I’m talking about design choices built into the multi-player setup – let’s look at some examples.

[tdogchristy90]

they had it right a long time ago. O the days of golden eye and halo 2. The days when you could play online and or splitscreen with your buddies. If anything they just kind of pushed it too far, mucked up the water persay. KISS, keep is simple stupid.

[Chadness]

I agree. I think part of the problem is getting away from split screen and focusing too much on online aspects. Not that there is anything wrong with that in and of itself, but I long for the days of people actually wanting to get together with friends in the same room for a night of Golden Eye.

[Perjoss]

devs are too stubborn to copy Halo matchmaking, this is why they are failing. To this day you can log onto a Halo3 game as a noob and play against other noobs, instead of getting mowed down by veterans.

[Winter47th]

Matchmaking is the worst thing that ever happened to online gaming. I'd take a server browser + filters any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

[Lich120]

@Winter

I completely agree, I don't know why they feel the need to add matchmaking to games... Gears 1 had a better system than Gears 2. Let me pick my gametype, don't assign me to one vaguely similar to the one I actually want.

[ECM0NEY]

Agreed Winter. Gears 3 better have a server filter like 1.

[Hitman0769]

I'm gonna go ahead and say online gaming rules. Party systems have really been a serious let down for a long time now and these are some prime examples of game design gone horribly wrong in this particular feature set. Why would you ever create a game with so many players as 16, 32, or even 256 and then limit the parties to groups of 4, 8, etc?

I am totally 100% with Rob on this one. It really is not rocket science to have bigger amounts of friends joining up together, it has been going on in the PC gaming world for longer than online gaming has existed in the console realm.

Looks to me like maybe everyone is playing catch-up still to the old concepts...

[Ninferno]

KISS... my teachers used to use that on me, but i agree... just keep it simple.

[DarkSpawnClone]

Eww, you're teachers use to kiss you ?..wtf.

[IaMs12]

Hey i wouldnt complain if some of my (Girl) teachers kissed me :)

[PopEmUp]

that some after school kiss :P

[DarkSpawnClone]

haha :P

[DA_SHREDDER]

I think MAG has the best online for fps on consoles, but most of you guys are so blind for your love of COD and Bad Company that you guys have yet to realize the answer is right before your eyes. Sver 4 life!

[Nicaragua]

You clearly didnt read the article. Its not talking about which is the best FPS and for what it is talking about then MAG is one of the worst offenders.

[Trroy]

MAG has a clan system coming in like a month.

And the VAST majority of MAG players are NOT affiliated with clans at all -- so 8-man squads WAS a good idea.

Honestly, the game's biggest flaw is the lack of a "just you and your buds" chat channel. The rest of the game is really fun, IMO. The clan support, although it will be cool when it comes (and it is coming soon -- they talk about it all the time on the MAG boards), will still not address the buddy chat issue.

Yeah... that's not a feature in any other game either. MAG could have been an even more phenominal MP shooter with it, however.

[Chewy102]

Zipper is working on upping the group limit in the next patch or 2 when clan wars come. (damn Trroy beat me to it)

Id also like to put out that neutral maps are coming in SUP and SABO soon (the 64 player modes). Zipper tested them last night by making the SABO maps neutral for a few hours. You should have see the forums when they slipped that in without telling anyone.

[RedDead]

I don't think the shooting mechanics are great compared to KZ or Cod

[Nicaragua]

Wow, thats just great! As long as they are just "talking" about upping the limit just 6 months after launch...well if I had only known that i would have kept my mouth shut! Hopefully it will be part of a DLC pack that i will have to pay for - YIPPEEE !!!

God forbid that they just include these features at launch - thanks for sharing this great bit of news.

[Garnett]

MAG is awful, just because its exclusive to the Trey doesnt make it better than Too human.

Both are isht!

[Chewy102]

I agree that the 8 man limit on groups was a bad move in MAG and it needed to be 32 max. But why the hell did you have to respond like a total ass and bring DLC into this? There is no why Zipper is going to charge for the clan wars or upping the group limit. They said it on their forums and (I think) in one or two of the Zipline podcasts.

Also the way Zipper does DLC in MAG isn't like most other games. Most other games you only download the DLC if you buy it. In Mag you download the DLC in the patches/updates and you get an unlock code from the store. Just like MGO.

[Blaze929]

They are the only ones who get this multiplayer stuff right especially with TrueSkill:

http://research.microsoft.c...

"TrueSkill is a Bayesian ranking algorithm developed by Microsoft Research and used in the Xbox matchmaking system built to address some perceived flaws in the Elo rating system."

Bungie is only taking it to the next level with Halo Reach and it's multiplayer innovations, UI, and matchmaking. With them, it actually WORKS.

On a second note, is this an Xbox LIVE exclusive feature or something? It's damn awesome and more games need to use it.

[gamerzBEreal17]

the next level with halo reach? by doing what adding sprint? better graphics? jet packs? how will they raise the bar next? aiming? xD /sarcasm

[PirateThom]

TrueSkill is amazing in theory, at the end of the day, you're still matched to whoever happens to be waiting in a lobby. It may filter it more, but you're still going to have a mix of good and bad players every game... the theory behind it is fantastic though, it just needs to be applied more heavily for players who do want a similar skill challenge, which is undone entirely by matchmaking anyway.

[Lich120]

I hate trueskill (not really, but kinda). Let me tell you why.

I loved Halo 3 while I was in the low levels. Getting a steak dinner every team deathmatch is tons of fun. Sure enough, after I ranked up a bit (high 40's) I found that I'd hit my skill cap. That is to say, I had to fight with everything I had to pull out a win. Im not a great halo player after all. I was glad when they reset the rankings so I could relax for awhile.

It gets stressful having to actually try every game, sometimes you want to just relax and play some people that are terrible.

[pustulio]

TrueSkill is retarded.

Me and a bud where both 49's in Team Doubles we won 48 matches, Fourty Fucking Eight! and we never went up to 50 then we lost one against two 50's and we went down to 48.

I will always remember that day, it was a kick in the nuts. Hard one.

[Marquis_de_Sade]

Lich, that's the single most idiotic comment I have seen on this site. If you want to chill out and trash people, then just play unranked games, to complain about TruSkill putting you in a game where you have to actually try to win is plain stupid, that's what it does, match you with others of a similar skill range.

[dinkeldinkse]

Bubble for the picture of my hero George Patton.

[mantisimo]

until uncharted 2 and love it, there's rarely a problem with the servers, the players are well balanced and I think its great fun, could do with a couple of new maps now though.

[WLPowell]

I hate being grouped with level 40-pluses from foreign countries who don't know how to play coop!!! Voice chat or not you're screwed at that point.

It's funny because a lot of matchmaking MP games are trying REAL hard to basically be the lobby system by giving all these extra "preference" selections. Just be the Lobby system and work like it used to.

[Nicaragua]

I just think that somewhere in the complexity of squads and parties and all that crap they have skipped the part where they just make a simply intuitive multiplayer setup.

What the hell was wrong with just picking a server from a list and then joining a game? Why am i being forced to play with guys from Bangladesh just because the matchmaking wants me to ?

Multiplayer needs to go back to basics, the PC had it right.

[Games4M - Rob]

Totally agree. I got into gaming playiing Counterstrike a looooong time ago and the system of just picking a game works fine.

Party systems are all well and good but they should exist as a supplement to a server list, not instead of.

[LiquifiedArt]

Lobbies are NOT the answer to "Intuitive" multiplayer designers.
Wrapping it into a party/matchmaking system is far more streamlined for the average user.

I will agree that Lobbies give more fidelity to MP options, but its really for the serious gamers, not the average gamer/casual gamer.

[Games4M - Rob]

Then surely the best option is to have both in order to keep everyone happy ?

Party up systems are fine but when they put a limit on the number of friends you can play with then where is the benefit? Its not like casual players only have 4 friends.

[Nuclearwinter]

The things I hate most about online gaming are matchmaking instead server lists and lobbies, and open mics. With matchmaking you really can't pick what maps you play, or who you play with. Its the reason I got rid of COD4 for PS3, and got the PC version instead. I was tired of playing with random people, who cough and have all sorts of ambient noises in their mics, and then if the host left that was it game over. With the PC version I could play on the same server, with same group of people, on the maps I wanted to play, with the rule mods I wanted to play with, and with up to 30 or more players. With the console version I all I got to pick was the gametype. This is also the reason why I just didn't buy CODMW2 at all.

And You really think the average gamer can't navigate through a list of servers and pick the one with the most players by the map they want to play?

[dragonelite]

One way dedis are awesome if the community themselfes can make them on consoles.
But take for example EA Bad company 2 had for a long server problems we as buyers can't shit about it. And when the next big EA shooter comes out we need to hope they dont butcher the server of their other games. I believe with BF1943 the took the some BC1 server to accommodate the people playing.

We had a solution for getting user created dedicated server with section 8 but that game bombed. Hope for next gen we could use the 360 and ps 3 as dedicated server we can use i would pay $10/year to get that option.

[JoelT]

that actually works. Casuals with casuals, elites with elites, and average players against.. you guessed it, average players.

Bungie is the only team to truly get this right and it started with Halo 2. The game had splitscreen, system link, and Trueskill matchmaking.

But because it is a MS title, here come the disagrees. lol

[Hitman0769]

I like the ideas of a much better matchmaking system like Trueskill or Uncharted 2's attempt at such.

But really there is no point in giving me a good matchmaking system if I can't play with my friends properly! I don't buy games to run in solo, but yes we need matchmaking improvements too it's getting ridiculous (i'm looking at you MW2).

[Games4M - Rob]

I totally agree that trueskill was a good matchmaking system but i dont really have that much of an issue with any matchmaking system just as long a it dosnt limit who i can play with.

[T9X69]

Matchmaking sucks balls, SOCOM's lobby system is where its at.

[MikeTyson]

I agree, where you actually pick your match like mgo. Course their is quick match in confrontation :P

[Blackfrican]

Here is a list of all games with a better matchmaking system than halo 2:

-Halo 3

Like the games or not, the entire multiplayer feature set in their games are unparalleled. And most importantly, they work...always!

[JoelT]

agree with more.

[Independent_Charles]

and thats the truth halo had over a million people playing at one point last week and not a hitch, and the servers are upgraded as of last week. there now on halo reach servers.

[Christopher]

If they were to combine TrueSkill with your friend's list... it would be perfect. I remember the old days of going to a friend's house, playing SF2 on the SNES and no matter that one of us almost never lost a match we still kept playing each other because we were playing with the people we enjoyed playing with the most.

[Hitman0769]

MAG was the worst offender. Talk about a let-down:

http://dualshockers.com/201...

[DoucheVader]

95% of the people that rag on MAG only played the BETA.

So their opinion isn't a very well informed one.

[chak_]

Dice got multiplayer gaming right

with BF1942/2/2142

Then they scraped SDK and added DLC, it's now all fucked up.
I'm 99% sure BC2 won't live as long as BF2.

And valve got it too with TF2

[Commodore]

Well the developer that USED to have it right was Zipper with SOCOM 2.

Possibly the best online shooter ever. The variety of maps was incredible. I think it had something like 16 maps. Sorry my mistake....22 maps.

The clan system was incredible, it wasn't a lousy three letter tag like most devs cheap out and do. You had an entire page dedicated to it, who was on, what room, their rank, the leader could post challenges and any news for gamebattles.

The ranking system was perfect, you had to earn your rank. Butterstick, double butter, cookie, wings and admiral. Not like every game now where if you play long enough (and suck) you get all the perks of the best people. Socom 2 had to perks by the way...Straight up skill.

Just saw that someone posted lobby system above....Also another reason why it was perfect.

Most of the weapons and other things that Zipper did 8 years ago weren't being done by others until 5-6 years later.

[Nuclearwinter]

SOCOM 2 was the best shooter. Played the online for almost 3 years, mostly with paintball rules. I can't say that for any game except Counterstrike. It was the first of its kind, and the best since. Hell, all zipper would really need to do is just redo the graphics and re-release SOCOM 2 and it would be the best online shooter ever.

[Neko_Mega]

I like Online and split screen, online is only fun when people don't have to cheat to win a simple game.

Split screen is good when your friends wants to play but doesn't have the system or game or even internet.

So both are great in their own ways and its true that not to many games are doing online right, mostly doing it to get more money.

MW2 has a get online but the problem is mostly the host leaving or the severs kicking you out, MAG so far doesn't really have those problems Vs people using lag to kill you, other then that I say Halo and MAG are the two best for Online or even Uncharted.

[BeaArthur]

Some get it right. Everyone needs to beta test. Beta testing could find unforeseen issues or undesirable features before the game releases. Beta testing isn't just for finding bugs in the gameplay.

[SuperStrokey1123]

I love the MP in Transformers, simple approach but still lots of depth in gameplay.

[Titanz]

They seem to have their sh*t in order.

[ranmafandude]

them sports games be glitchy as hell lol.

[ranmafandude]

i think the one of the few developers that got multi-player right without any huge problems at least on the consoles is bungie. halo 3 like i said many times before is really solid to play. there are practically no glitches now and is balanced. didn't bungie even help naughty dog with their online and theater mode on uncharted 2? now that's telling you something right there.

[Kleptic]

I heard bungie, in some for of another, helped both insomniac with R2's multiplayer system, as well as ND with Uncharted 2...but then also heard it was more just helped with the website design and linking game accounts to the website database...so not sure...but as far as PS3 games go, both of those had very easy to use party systems...especially R2...which had a 'background' party system that could be accessed at any time from anywhere within the multiplayer portion of the game...

Killzone 2 was a game that fell in the middle...at first it had no party system...you could only 'follow' friends into a game they were already playing...unless you used the insane clan system, which was great, but resulted in thousands of clans a day being made simply for a group of friends to play a match or two (made the clan system so overloaded you never knew if you were playing a 'real' clan)...it later got an invite system patched in, which helped a lot...but still involved one person finding a lobby with enough open slots to start inviting your friends...you didn't all get into a party then find the game, which is how it 'should' work...

[MikeTyson]

*cough* mgo, fk konami id, game id, character id LOL

[ivant]

I like the simplicity of Warhawk.....no match making here, just list the games you want, then join.

[BeaArthur]

haha, bubbles for The Brave Little Toaster.

[Pandamobile]

There's nothing worse than sitting idle in a lobby waiting to play, and having to sit through an intermission at the end of the map.

Match making is a console cancer that has unfortunately made its way to PC due to lazy developers like Infinity Ward. Somehow, dedicated servers and a server browser are "features" when they've been a PC standard since the mid-NINETIES.

[cdland]

Consoles suck as servers... even home computers are not the best. Who ever is the host rules the game, this is an advantage... no lag. All the games I have ever played in multiplayer on a computer... Quake, Duke Nukem, Unreal and all the Battlefield games. All game platforms other than a computer are big bussiness making money off people that need less hastle to setup... where is the any key people... Plug and play. Ok so consoles crash and burn like computers because that is what they are. Hardware and software... So yes KISS, just keep a theme like outer space... wild west and be true to it...

Have fun gaming CC :-)

[MonopolyRSV]

Guerrilla Games are the only ones that know how to get it right, for the most part.

[DoucheVader]

@Rob Bateman

I am not confident your knowledge of College Level ANSI C would be enough to create the party systems you want in MAG. :) :) :)

Had you actually been keeping up with developments on these games you would know...

Zipper did not elect to tie clan squads together because it would have been unbalanced. Making MAG that clan focused early on would be a death nail to noobs.

How would you like it if your first game at MAG you were being OWNED by 2 Platoons all Miced up under the same clan tag. You likely wouldn't stay in the game. People leaving games like that presents a huge issue to the game play.

Furthermore, Zipper has gone on record saying there would be much more expanded clan support within MAG. If I remember correctly clan battles will be possible in the future.

I suggest you do a little research next time into WHY these games made those design choices.

You are suggesting the developers are just stupid or to lazy. Often the ideas players have are the same the devs have and when they implement them something breaks or there is an unbalance that needs to be addressed.

So what is wrong with the server list / server create functions?

1 - It takes people away from Mainstream game Queues.

2 - It creates "back alley servers" that cater to particular clans or groups.

3 - These servers often function as noob traps. Noobs log in to one of these Clan Servers, get owned, called bad things and creates a poor gameplay experience. Poor gameplay experience reflects on the title and the developer worse then a lack of features for people to take advantage of noobs. DICE, Zipper and IW did not spend millions of dollars to create bully servers.

4 - People creating their own servers sets up an Ownership and Entitlement mentality. Shooters have enough problems with TKing, glitches, cheats, lag, plain ole assholes, etc. Do they really need a clan feeling entitled to do these things? Pop in Warhawk if you don't know what I mean.

5 - Allows hackers and glitchers to work and experiment unfettered. At least when you play on public servers there is the benefit of random people being there to witness what is going on and possibly report it to the developers.

6 - New shooter players don't understand a server list as easily as "join game". Understand the shooter genre has been ridiculed for not being very open to noobs and in this day and age of a declining economy developers have it in their best interest for their game to be as open to any player as possible.

So there are 6 reasons off the top of my head why this feature may be going the way of the do-do bird.

[Pandamobile]

1. What does that even mean?

2. That's part of the reason why the PC community is more of an actual "community". How could you possibly consider that a bad thing?

3. If the noob plays with the skilled players, they get better a lot faster than if they play with people their own skill level. Every person has a tough time with Counter Strike Source the first time they play it, yet it's still sold like 6 million units, and is still one of the most played online games today.

4. They own the server. They can enforce what ever rules they want. 99% of the time it's a good thing because without the admins enforcing the rules, you'd have more hackers, more glitchers, more laggers, more assholes and more TKing. This sort of shit can't be enforced in games where the server is run and controlled in a giant server farm owned by Sony or Microsoft or EA or something.

5. You can do this in pretty much any game, dedicated servers or not. It has nothing to do with anything.

6. How hard is it to take one look at a server browser and figure out what's going on. It's not a complicated device. It tells you the name of the server, what map it's playing, how many people are in it / how many people can fit in it, and the connection quality. A lot of games with dedicated servers have "Play Now" button (eg, BFBC2) that just drops you in a random populated server with a decent connection. If you're too stupid to figure out how to use something as simple as a server browser, you probably shouldn't be playing video games.

[DoucheVader]

1 - It means what it said. It's 100% English with no double speak.

2 - What works for PC doesn't always work on Consoles.

3 - If the noob comes into a server with bully's it's going to seriously undercut their ability to enjoy the game. Worse yet, what if said bullies now follow him?

4 - Actual ownership and perception of ownership are two different things. Why do you think Best Buy fires all the people who help setup stores? It's because they feel they have entitlements since they helped "build the place".

5 - If you setup your OWN server then you can fill it up with YOUR friends and find out things that exploit the game. You can't do this in every game.

6 - It's not hard for me and it's not hard for you, but I don't think the devs want to create 2 cultures in their games. They want all MP players to play together.

[Pandamobile]

So now let me counter your list of 6 moot points of why dedicated servers suck, with a couple points of why dedicated servers are an important part of online gaming.

1. More server locations. You can set up your own server in literally any part of the world with an internet connection. There's TF2 servers that operate out of my mid-sized town of 30,000 people in Southern Ontario. So rather than getting stuck in a server that is thousands of miles away, or god forbid connect to another player (COD), you can have the best connection possible. I typically play in Chicago servers or Toronto servers because I know I'll get a good connection to them and provided the best possible online experience.

2. Mod communities. Without dedicated server and mod communities, we wouldn't have a lot of the games we love today. Games like Counter Strike, and Team Fortress were both created as mods of the original Half-Life and Quake engines in the 90's. If we were stuck using a unified online system, the creation of multiplayer mods would be impossible.

3. Control. What do you do when you spot a hacker or glitcher when you're playing on a console or game without dedicated servers? Absolutely nothing. Yeah, sure, you can go ahead and report him to the developers, and he may get banned in a couple months, but you're stuck with that asshole now. Want to know how people that run their own servers deal with these kinds of people? A nice, swift perma-ban. End of story. That guy is gone, and he ain't ever coming back to this server.

4. Communities and clans. I've been part of about half a dozen CSS, BF2 and TF2 clans in my 5 years as a PC gamer. There's something about having a central hub where you can come and meet up with the same group of people day in and day out that helps build a strong community. If you find a server that operates in a similar way to the way you'd operate a server if you owned one, you're going to find yourself coming back and back again because they play only the maps you like, and have to rules that you like.

5. There's no EOL. Recently, we've seen Halo 2 go the way of the dinosaurs. Why? Because Microsoft decided it was time to shut it down. All they have to do to kill the game is press a button, and poof, no more Halo 2. I challenge you to pop in one of your old PS2 or Xbox games and try to find a match to play online. Compare that to a game like Counter Strike, which has been around longer than the PS2 and Xbox which still has over 50,000 people playing it at this very moment. Why are there still so many people playing it? Because there's no kill-button when you've got thousands of people that own their own servers. Counter Strike will continue to be played for another ten years, easily. The original Call of Duty still has thousands of people that play it every day.

So are you still gonna try to argue that dedicated servers are a bad thing?

Sorry for the essay comment, but I can't leave people like this alone.

[DoucheVader]

First off Mr. Panda -- this conversation is about CONSOLE Multiplayer. PC Gaming isn't really relevant here. MAG isn't available on the PC.

1 - More isn't always better. Look at Rosie O'donnell.

2 - Mod communities are not relevant to Console Multiplayer, with the exception of Unreal Tournament for PS3 and likely Portal 2. Two games certainly are not the norm. Also I don't see why Mods would exclude the game queues that are utilized on Console Multiplayer. Each mod could be voted on.

3 - Well I appreciate you speaking for me, but it's unnecessary I can do it for myself, generally much better then you. I actually report glitchers and cheaters when I am certain they are up to no good.

"Want to know how people that run their own servers deal with these kinds of people? A nice, swift perma-ban. End of story. That guy is gone, and he ain't ever coming back to this server."

Is this more PC talk in our Console conversation? I appreciate the passion but it's completely misplaced.

4 - All of those games have HUGE dedicated player bases that have been around for years. How long has the Modern Warfare community been around? Since 2008, not exactly steeped in a deep history. How many mods are available for MW, MW2? None. I have played PC games online, I have seen how "cliquey" people get on thier with their ELITE UBER CLANS and honestly it's not very friendly to a new person. It's one of the reasons I stopped playing online games. The very culture of PC gaming would encourage that kind of Douche Baggery.

5 - You can still have queues without the publisher hosting every server, they may not be ranked. It all depends on how the developer works out the muliplayer. Many of them just use a 3rd party server system. Some use a P2P topology which allows for any player to host a game.

If you have to respond -- please keep it relevant to Console gaming.

[Nicaragua]

Your 6 reasons are utter bullshit, that is all.

[likedamaster]

DoucheVader, you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Red Panda]

WOW!

[The Maxx]

BF:BC2 seems to have a pretty secure online multiplayer.

[DFresh]

If dedicated servers were in a lot of games this wouldn't be a problem and also more features are welcome too.

[M0t0rBreath]

Some games can't run on P2P. Battlefield for example needs dedicated servers. P2P can't handle huge battles, lots of vehicles, player amount, etc.

To stay on topic, every game will have it's faults. Some more than others. I believe every gaming company should have dedicates 'Fix it' teams. They are not necessarily part of the development team, but help post launch. This allows for the dev team to continue working on DLC or other games and the 'Fix it' team on bugs/glichtes.

[ACEMANWISE]

It's the only game I know of that has problems "finding players". I bought the DLC and it is even slower.

My advice in general is to get the basics right first. Stop releasing games that are broken on disc with the intent of fixing months later. Because once this generation is over I don't expect to see the servers to be around...and I don't want to be left with a broken coded disc with no server to fix it.

Next? Start allowing ownership of things you buy and stop linking them behind an account. Sony needs to stop blocking copyrighted games and content from being backed up which is 90% of the purpose for a back up to begin with and 90% of the data on your system. Microsoft needs to lighten up on banning gamers from live and shutting them out of their game purchases in the process.

If Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, or any PC company can't get a simple online structure right then how can we be talking about getting developers into making multiplayer games right? It's like asking a tree to bear fruit when it is rooted in the desert sand.

[adlt]

Unreal Tournament III have this? I just remember it being if you played against good people then your rank would go up, but if you lost against bad people your rank would go down...or is TrueSkill something different?

[codyodiodi]

Well you had nothing to say about Halo, and I must agree that Halo has the best multiplayer out there.

[AssassinHD]

I think the real question is "Why can't gamers get multiplayer gaming right?". Most of the problems with online gaming are caused by the players themselves. The glitches may be present in a game (and developers should certainly stay vigilant about glithces), but it is the players who exploit them. It is the players who antagonize others on the mic. It is the players who are so concerned with their kill/death ratio that they actively avoid teamwork. It is the players who think it is funny to go around teamkilling.

[Spartan DL]

Bungie seems to do it great every time.