Not sure anyone will see this as it's nearly a week later. I've just added support for Sniper Elite on GameRanger, so it can be played online again easily. More rescues are still to come...
Thanks for the kind words. Just enabled Sniper Elite today, and more are still to come.
Rodents of Hunusual Size. I don't believe they exist.
Success! Just added support for GRID on GameRanger. This won't help the unfortunate PS3 souls, but will at least help out the PC players.
I need to look into this further, but I may be able to provide a solution. GameRanger has "rescued" many other orphaned multiplayer PC games in the past.
Damnit, no! This is going to mean they'll wrap up House M.D.
"Land shark!"
The Land Shark Gun from the game, Armed and Dangerous.
That won't help their business. They need a sucker dying every minute.
Whoooosh! (And you also missed the other intentional misspelling.)
"And then they came for me."
Let's talk about some old games. Take, for one, Halo 2. It's now going to be permanently offline, as a result of it being connected to Microsoft's services. Let's go back though. Take a look at Jedi Knight. Can you play that online anymore? Nope. Microsoft service. Dead. Any of those other MSN/"Zone" games? Dead. At least DirectPlay supported LAN in the same manner as online, so the games all still support that.
You raise a valid point, though Jedi Knight: Dark Forces II and nearly all of the MSN Zone games can still be played online through GameRanger (see the list). You'd be amazed at how many games of Age of Empires II are being played each day -- it puts many recent games to shame.
Throttling does not affect packet latency. At the router level, it generally involves selectively discarding packets. Data is not drip-fed at the bit level or byte level.
In order to intentionally affect latency, it would have to do a lot more work by buffering them for a period of time before forwarding onwards.
Now throttling can affect latency of logical messages within a TCP stream depending on the size of those messages, due to the retransmissions required, but does not affect the latency of UDP packets as stated.
I'm not sure that net-neutrality would help this. ISPs are blocking high volumes of UDP packets, and they'll claim it's to protect users from DDoS attacks. They may even be telling the truth.
The summary is also badly composed by following the latency complaint with a quote about blocking traffic. That is, unless you consider a blocked packet to have infinite latency. The letter is much more vague about what their actual latency complaint is, other than, you know, latency is bad.
Anyone else read it as entrails?
One man's constant is another man's variable. -- A.J. Perlis
