Why don't console games list servers for multiplayer games like PC games do? I've played plenty of both through the years, and I've always wondered that. I'm sure there's a technical why this is, and I'm guessing it's probably pretty simple. (Does it have something to do with console games playing off of a disc?)

There is no reason they can't, and I actually think the reasons are less technical and more user-based. Console gamers are perceived to be more casual and less tech-savvy than pc gamers, so having a system where the server comes to them rather than the other way round is more appropriate. 

" There is no reason they can't, and I actually think the reasons are less technical and more user-based. Console gamers are perceived to be more casual and less tech-savvy than pc gamers, so having a system where the server comes to them rather than the other way round is more appropriate.  "

Doesn't each console hosting a game kind of work as a server? 

console multiplayer servers are run by the developer or publisher themselves where they monitor the goings-on in each server and have strict control-guidelines to follow, whereas most pc multiplayer servers are run privately (this seems to be a declining trend now with the advent of MW2), allowing admins to modify the game to their will. so when you join a console multiplayer game, the match is instanced (uniquely generated) out of a group of players waiting to connect, rather than allowing you to choose from a list of servers which meet your criteria.

Console gamers just want to hit 'Go' and have everything work.  PC gamers typically appreciate more control than that.  Different strokes.

There are no real technical limitations to allowing a server browser in console games (short of microsoft/sony restrictions on who is allowed to link servers to their services, and the interface for joining them).  Still, there are financial reasons to avoid centralized servers altogether-- home users may not realize this but bandwidth gets very expensive.  Offsetting that cost on the players is much more financially viable.  As far as I can tell, that is the primary reason for the push for peer-networked games.  On a service where the community can't launch their own servers regardless, it also ensures that the game remains playable even after it's no longer viable for the publisher/dev to host servers (though the games will still fail when it's no longer viable for the service-holder). 
 
Also, microsoft/sony have this idea that you'll have more fun playing online games if their automated tools can tell you who you should play against. 
 
That said, foregoing centralized servers on PC for games that warrant such (IE: any FPS) is a punch in the nads to anyone who plays games on those systems.  User-held servers allow far greater customization and community than anything other flavors can give.  Arguments could be made for other genres, but I believe the sense of 'fairness' most strictly applies to FPS.

there is no technical reason, its just for ease of use. you have a controller rather then a mouse and keyboard, its not as easy to navigating a list with a controller. whenever i play a console game with a interface that is similar to that of a pc i find my self spending way to much time looking for a server, where other games i just select a few preferences and hit go and im playing within seconds.
 
the only console game that kinda pulls it off that i can think of is warhawk. but just like with pc servers i often find that the rooms im looking for only have three or four people, but with matchmaking because it pools all the people and matches them up i rarely have this problem.

" console multiplayer servers are run by the developer or publisher themselves where they monitor the goings-on in each server and have strict control-guidelines to follow "

Thanks a lot you guys for your answers. I'm not at all tech savoy or anything, so it's all pretty enlightening to me. Like I said, I've played both PC and Xbox360, I see the advantages and disadvantages to both. These last few years though, aside from a little Sims 3, it's pretty much been all Xbox360. My buddy John is a self described "console hater". Aside from a few sports titles, he thinks consoles a complete waste of time, and that playing a FPS on a console is the stupidest thing on earth. He preferred to sink a massive amount of money into building a ridiculous PC to game on. Each to their own I suppose. Personally, I'm just behind with my PC right now. But at some point soon I want to make a big upgrade on my machine and doing some PC gaming again. But I digress. I had read someone else's comments on this site about gaming servers. It was actually two people spouting back and forth and part of their argument crossed into this very topic. The one guy said that consoles didn't have server lists because the consoles played the games off the disc and that the servers couldn't relay certain types of information.....yada yada yada. Obviously that dude was clueless. I like your all's answers better, which seem to culminate into the fact that a need for a server list lies only with the PC gaming community, with consoles users preferring to bypass the list all together in favor of being shuttled directly into the server that the game best sees fit. This is a huge topic of conversation between my buddy John and I. He can't bear to play ANYTHING that doesn't have a list of servers for him to choose from. He'll flat out refuse. Myself, I only want whatever system works best with whatever game I'm playing at the time. Now I only have the Xbox to go off of, but two games I play quite a bit are perfect examples of what I mean. MW2 has clearly set the bar for how a game should automatically find a game for you. There's absolutely NO reason for MW2 have a server list. At least I can't think of one, not when it works as well as it does. Battlefield Bad Company 2 on the other hand has seemed to have missed the mark. It does a sub par job at best  with getting you into the best server. BBC2 would benefit greatly from a server list. But based off of what you guys have told me, it's just a matter of the console culture not really caring much about a server list that keeps BBC2 from being a better game on Xbox. Anyone else feel the same way or have the same problems as I with either MM2 or BBC2 on Xbox Live? (next time I post on here it won't be a short novel)

Gears of War was peer to peer but it had a "list". I like it more than matchmaking to be honest.

"Why don't console games list servers for multiplayer games like PC games do? I've played plenty of both through the years, and I've always wondered that. I'm sure there's a technical why this is, and I'm guessing it's probably pretty simple. (Does it have something to do with console games playing off of a disc?) "

" console multiplayer servers are run by the developer or publisher themselves where they monitor the goings-on in each server and have strict control-guidelines to follow, whereas most pc multiplayer servers are run privately (this seems to be a declining trend now with the advent of MW2), allowing admins to modify the game to their will. so when you join a console multiplayer game, the match is instanced (uniquely generated) out of a group of players waiting to connect, rather than allowing you to choose from a list of servers which meet your criteria. "

" Doesn't each console hosting a game kind of work as a server?  "