I started a thread on a technical forum about the XIM2 and this is one of the responses I received. This was my reply and I thought people would find it interesting. I hope you enjoy it.
Great. So now I have to worry about people with an unfair advantage online. My friend has some weird mouse controller for his PS3 and I view it as cheating.
Edit: This is why I wish Microsoft had their own solution. Then you could have flags for game servers that allowed or disallowed mouse. You could keep a level playing field.
Dear no-name, I understand your concern but I think in the scope of the
current situation on the platform I think "cheating" and "unfair advantage" is a bit unfair. In the first case the mouse cannot input any movements that aren't technically possible with the gamepad. This isn't like the PC where the upper/lower limits for a gamepad and a mouse are different--a mouse going through the gamepad is limited to the same design limitations that gamepad hardware and software impose. For example a mouse cannot turn any faster than a gamepad being pushed all the way left or right as the gamepad will only accept a 0-255 range (iirc).
As for an unlevel/unfair playing field... well, I was "brain storming" this for my review, but that may not happen any time soon so I will blurt my thoughts out here.
The Illusion of the Level Playing FieldThe biggest complaint from console gamers about the introduction of Mouse & Keyboard (MS/KB) support is that it unlevels the
currently level playing field for gamepad gamers. Whether the KB/MS devices as they currently stand make the playing field more unlevel than they currently are is debatable, but I the idea that the playing field over XBL is "level" ignores that huge variety of variables that influence the quality of gameplay people experience over XBL. Some examples.
DISPLAY. There is a significant number of users still using displays that are 480p, or worse, 480i (I was using 480i until a month ago...) At these resolutions many games have unreadable text and the image quality is often very poor. You would think that at 640x480 that the Xbox 360 would either downsample a HD image or render at 480i with MSAA and high levels of AF--but in most cases this is not true. Thus users of such displays are at an unfair advantage in that objects on screen are often more difficult to identify (Of note, a couple early PS3 games only supported 720p and 480p resolutions so early 1080i sets auto-defaulted to 480p and offered no HD setting).
But anyone serious about competitive gaming is going to
buy an HD display, so playing field is level... right? Not quite. Until the last couple years a lot of displays had very poor response rates, well over 16ms (~60Hz) in many cases which often produced significant ghosting. But you have a 16ms display so this isn't an issue... except most manufactures use deceptive methods to measure response rates (iirc grey to grey) which offer a best case scenario not often met by actual experience. Further some older sets have fixed post processing/scaling which adds another level of latency between the image output from the 360 to the image display on the screen. Further a lot of LCDs, especially lower response rate units, are 18bit "pixels" and use hardware dithering to obtain "16.2M" colors. Most of these issues have been resolved in the last couple years but if you have an older HD display you may have a degree of latency that impacts gameplay as well as image quality issues that gamers with better/newer displays don't have to deal with. Of course there are always tradeoffs, for example 1080i displays are limited to 30 frames per second (60 fields) whereas a progressive display can hit 60 frames per second which can be a big advantage in a game, like Forza Motorsport 2 or VF5, which supports 60Hz. The verse is true of games that support 1080p output. Display resolution, clarity, and latency do have an impact on gaming. Latency in particular can diminish ones ability to compete.
CONTROLLERS. The next step in the chain, after seeing the image, is the gamer reaction directed through the controller. I will have more to say about controllers below, but taking the standard Xbox 360 controller there are cabled and wireless SKUs. There isn't a big difference between the two (I believe the frequency of the device is high enough to mitigate any potential latency issues on the wireless controllers), but I have experienced a number of unfortuitous examples of my wireless connection being interrupted or the batteries going dead which caused lag or a disconnect. While minor, there is a small advantage to using a wired controller because your signal will never be disrupted by other wireless devices or be prone to a weak signal caused by dieing batteries.
ONLINE. Now that the gamer has seen the gameplay image and responded through the controller the next step is sending the data to other users in the game--this is where the playing field becomes very unbalanced on the Xbox 360. The most blatant example is host advantage. A number of high profile games (e.g. Gears of War 1) offer a significant advantage to the host. Seeing as most Live games are Peer-to-Peer (P2P) and don't use dedicated servers this makes sense: the user hosting the game will experience the least amount of latency. This is a difficult topic to shoe horn games into as they use different methods to measure and predict user movement and how it relates to user aim (some older games only cared if you hit what was on the users screen, most current games seem to take the route of detecting to see if you hit where the enemy player was on the "server" regardless of whether the user hit something on their own screen). But the bottom line is that a number of games have significant host advantage over Xbox Live and since few games have dedicated servers there is no simple way to neutralize this.
Yet even games that use dedicated servers do not guarantee every player is playing on a level playing field. There are the obvious examples like location (how far are you from the game server?) as well as proximity to a major backbone hub, both of which impact your latency to the game. And then there are provider limitations in that some people have very limited downstream and upstream bandwidth. Sure, in some cases they could
buy a better internet connection, but in some cases this isn't possible. I have seen areas where providers are still capping 128kbps for upstream bandwidth--imagine how unfun (and unfair) the gameplay experience is when someone with a poor connection like this is serving a game! And there are always local issues that impact latency, like routers. If you are using a wireless router and wireless adapter you are adding another level of latency to your gameplay experience, not to mention possible connection issues due to interferance or whatnot (True story: In my former clan a gents daughter would absolutely ruin his online experience when she would load up her chatting software as it would drive his ping right through the cieling. Using a shared access point can really ruin your fun if it isn't setup correctly and/or when sharing with application hogs)
Latency is a huge factor in how fair the playing field is in games. If I have a 20ms ping (or near 0 with host advantage) and you are in the 100-150 range I could have a handful of frames advantage in seeing what is happening in the game--this is a significant advantage. Unfortunately most games put you at the mercy of Xbox Live in regards to finding the best possible match as very few games have server browsers to search by ping. I don't know how many matches of Halo 3 with a mere 8 people have been nearly unplayable due to lag. No dedicated servers and host bandwidth (+ advantage) are a factor, but the inability to manually search for games with the best connection puts you at the mercy of the Live.
AUDIO/HEADSET. Another factor impacting players experience and advantage is audio. A player with a small display with a poor integrated stereo unit (or worse, mono!) is at a sizable disadvantage to someone with a quality 5.1 sound system. Being able to hear players behind you is a big advantage! Of course you could
buy a nice sound system, but not every user has the space or money for such an investment. Of course you can
buy some cheap, and effective, 5.1 headphones for under $50--I love mine--but that introduces another can of worms: the Headset with microphone. While majority (>50% in my estimation) gamers on Live tend to have a microphone in games I play (Halo 3, Madden 09, Forza Motorsport 2) there is still a fair number who don't. Maybe it is because it is late at night and don't want to wake the family, or their headset broke (which is quite common), or their console didn't come with one. Yes, they could
buy a headset to level the playing field, but that still requires the effort to purchase a product to improve the experience and their ability to compete--and being able to chat with your teammates is a HUGE advantage in any game. Of course if you just bought a 5.1 headphone set you cannot use your microphone! Unless... you
buy the $150 Turtlebeach 5.1 Headset/Microphone product. I have never seen any numbers, but my limited experience is many gamers don't have their consoles set up to 5.1 audio devices for some reason (space, cost, console in a different room, etc) and the cheap/ease solution of headphones negates the microphone in most cases.
CONTROLLER HACKS. Most of us here are familiar with the Dpad issues on the Xbox 360, and a fair number us have read how adding a small plastic disk or filing the edges of the controller housing resolves this to a degree. Of course most gamers aren't familiar with such so they suffer through games (like Street Fighter on XBLA) with an inferior setup. That may be a small hack that resolves a design issue, but it is an advantage (one that warranty minder consumers like myself have failed to employ). Yet where does one transition from a hack to a cheat, and where is the playing field made unfair/unlelve? Some gamers have installed electronic repeaters in their gamepads ala old school "turbo." Is filing the edge of the Dpad housing any more/less a cheat than a repeater? Both make the competitive playing field unlevel compared to the individual using completely stock equipment.
ACCESSORIES. In my opinion accessories and peripherals is where the "level playing field" illusion comes crashing down. Consumers can
buy, with Microsoft's approval, a large number of peripherals that give an unfair competitive advantage for online gameplay. A classic example is the Arcade Sticks (from Hori, Arcade in a Box, etc) which any veteran of fighting series like VF, DoA, SC, Tekken, etc will tell you: Arcade Sticks own. For $60 (or more) gamers can purchase a controller that is superior to the standard gamepad. Not enough? Hori even offers a version with Turbo (as well as a gamepad with the same feature).
The same goes for racing games: having access to a nice racing wheel gives you a degree of sensativity and intuition that is difficult to have on a controller. Even though the 360 racing wheel is limited to a 270 degree turning radius you still have more practical degrees of registration than the ~1" motion of the thumbstick (although a company is now selling thumbstick accessories that elongate the pad for more finer input; on a side note they are offering thumbstick extensions for the same result in FPS titles). But at the end of the day having a wheel with pedals is an advantage. Of course it things is always some give and take, and this is no exception. You can turn left-to-right much quicker with a gamepad thumbstick in many situations compared to a wheel, but a lot of this depends on how the software is designed. PGR4, for example, has a lot of lock-to-lock steering mechanics that with the backside drifting is executed quite often (and no real way to tone down the amount of turn on the wheel); on the other hand Forza Motorsport 2 tends toward more fine movements so the lag from going lock-to-lock as quickly as a gamepad is less relevant so the advantage is squarely on the Wheel. Except, as fate would have it, Forza Motorsport 2 gives a number of aids to gamepads (observe the typical behavior with a gamepad, especially the tapping, and you will see why) skew the results. It was recently noted at the Turn10 forums that there are a couple gamepad specific aids that allow expert gamepad users to get better hot lap times--so now we are into this grey area where a wheel gives some advantages due to the superiority of the hardware but the user aids for the gamepad can, in some cases, skew the playing field. So is it fair, or unfair, to use a Wheel? Gamepad? I know people who hate Wheels because, while more realistic, they cannot perform as well. And others who think it is unfair that people can spend $150 (or now $100) and
buy a peripheral to gain an advantage by using a wheel--so neither camp is always happy.
You can extend this dynamic to dance pads, flight sticks, wireless headphones and mics, buzzer controllers (controllers without rumble too!), ad nauseam. There are a host of accessories that gamers can
buy that potentially give them a competitive advantage and thus unlevel the playing field.
The point is the playing field isn't level or fair. I
bolded the word
buy above to accent a point: if you have money and are interested in getting the best experience--and best advantage--there are ways to
buy an advantage in online gaming. The field is not level--there is only an illusion of a level playing field. If you are on a small old 14" CRT TV with RF or S-Video input with mono-sound, no headset, and live in the boonies in Arkansas with a 768/128 DSL connection you won't have the same experience as someone playing in downtown Dallas or Chicago with Fiber and a 48" 1080p60 Plasma display, high end 5.1 sound system (or Turtle Beach 5.1 Headset with Microphone), and game specific accessories (like an arcade stick for fighting games).
The playing field is unlevel because you can purchase a host of accessories and peripherals to gain a better experience. So where does the rabbit hole end?
Of course this isn't so simple because what is an advantage to some isn't to another. The Wheel is a classic example, but there are other areas. For example there is a familiarity factor: some people prefer gamepads for FPS, and are GREAT with them. My best friend is someone like this. The reverse is true of many PC-raised gamers. FASA (r.i.p.) had noted that in their game it wasn't clear cut which was better as KB/MS were good at sniping and gamepads better up close. How much of this was a design issue and user aids and how much is related to the devices hasn't been spelled out, but it is worth noting that at least in this example a developer was able to allow gamepad and KB/MS users to play together. Other games, like UT3 on the PS3, offered a simple filter to allow segregation for those concerned about the unfair advantage. My bias is that KB/MS are better in general for FPS games as I think anatomically thumbsticks don't offer the same learning curve (I think mice allow novice gamers, the 30-60% window of gamers, to be more proficient faster and I think the top 10% of KB/MS users is superior to the top 10% of gamepad users, but this is my observation and it is limited.)
But that opens up the ultimate can of worms: why aren't console makers allowing KB/MS on the consoles? MS spent a lot of time during their E3 2005 presentation about reaching 1 Billion consumers about the aspect of customization and tailoring the 360 experience to each consumer. Face plates, accessories, avitars, and so forth. With a host of peripherals on the market you have to stop and ask: why no KB/MS? The 360 has a HDD in most cases, HD support, online access. Toss in a KB/MS and it becomes a great platform for RTS and other PC centric titles bound to the mouse. It also allows old time PC gamers to make the 360 more familiar and fun. But for obvious political reasons, and no desire to tick off their 10M Halo users, they don't want to create the impression that the playing field is unlevel.
Of course the playing field is unlevel, it always has been, but the illusion is a difficult one to break.
Ultimately if you have the money you can
buy an advantage over many consumers. It may be small (better display, faster network speeds, nicer peripherals, and so forth) but the advantage can be had. The XIM2 is no different: if you play better with a KB/MS (some people don't) you can pay for the advantage. Now there is some debate about how much of advantage there is as the games don't support KB/MS and are designed with the gamepad in view; likewise the XIM2 is limited by the input limitations of the gamepad and the expected input the game translates. Some games will be nearly PC perfect, others will feel odd. So it is difficult to call them cheaters for potentially having an advantage, unless we want to say every gamer with a nice TV wearing a headset on a fast net connection hosting the game a cheater.
Ultimate, what I care about, is that I am having fun. I don't want an advantage, but I do want to enjoy myself and I don't want to deal with shaky thumbs (work related). Why can Joe Lucky have an arcade stick and John a wheel but I cannot have a mouse? Customization is in... as long as you don't interfer with the perception. It is fun to have a wheel or arcade stick but cheating to have a mouse. Why? For MS it is a political issue (Windows/Xbox segregation, keeping console fans happy) and console fans don't want anything to destroy the illusion that they have a level playing field on Xbox Live... even if they don't.
It would be nice if MS brought their own solution, and they mentioned the XFPS in 2006 and 2007, but nothing has materialized. Until then you will continue to see gamers attempt to augment their gaming experience to enjoy it to the fullest, and in turn people complain because they don't want to play with people who don't play their way even if they could play the other way if they spent the money.
