Since a big point of the 360 is LIVE.  Its the multiplayer service of choice for millions of people. While the service is great the multiplayer games are offering more features like screencaps, recordings, map editors, clans, and customizable characters. While I am sure people like these features are 360 devs putting too much time into the features and not enough on the core gameplay. The next question is why is there a lack of 32 player and up multiplayer games. Sure there is Battlefield and Frontlines, but PS3 seems to be getting tones of them, including PSN games like Fat Princess.

So the questions are:
More Features or more Players?

I think alot of existing games wouldnt benefit that much from higher player caps. Most of them get frantic enough as is.

The other thing is the fact that online console games dont often utilise servers, so there are technical limitations.

More players depends on the type of online game you are going for, I dont necessarily think more players overall is the future of online gaming (as in more than 32). Whereas gameplay and features will constantly need to be evolved and changed to keep people interested.

Resistance and Mag could have there place, and personally im looking forward to it. But unless they come out and have absolutely fantastic formulas, I dont see the limits changing to much.

"I think alot of existing games wouldnt benefit that much from higher player caps. Most of them get frantic enough as is.

The other thing is the fact that online console games dont often utilise servers, so there are technical limitations.

More players depends on the type of online game you are going for, I dont necessarily think more players overall is the future of online gaming (as in more than 32). Whereas gameplay and features will constantly need to be evolved and changed to keep people interested.

Resistance and Mag could have there place, and personally im looking forward to it. But unless they come out and have absolutely fantastic formulas, I dont see the limits changing to much.


"

I am a bit skeptical of adding a higher player cap.  Especially, when it comes to working cohesively with a team.  You take big team battles and groundwar.  Both are great, however, unless you go in with a full team of your friends, you will hardly ever find the team working as a unit. 

"I am a bit skeptical of adding a higher player cap.  Especially, when it comes to working cohesively with a team.  You take big team battles and groundwar.  Both are great, however, unless you go in with a full team of your friends, you will hardly ever find the team working as a unit. 
"

I wouldn't mind dropping features for more players or dropping players for more features. It all depends on the game. I think a bare bones Battlefield type game that can have massive battles would be awesome.

I'd rather have a shitload of good features than a shitload of teens screaming at me because I'm better than they are.

I could care less about the features like recordings, map editors, clans, and customizable characters. I really just want to play the game, also there isn't a need for 60 player fights

The number of players

Games like Halo are great just 4vs4, even 16vs16 on Halo is far to frantic for my liking. I would rather have more features (ie; video editing, screen capture, level editor, awesome stuff) than having even more idiots running around shooting each other.

most games cap at 8v8 since xbox live uses p2p. games like bf2 and bad comapany can have 12v12 since its servers are hosted by ea. doesnt matter anyways, 8v8 is perfect for me.

Team fortress 2. Perfect multiplayer game, needs more people.

I could care less about more players. There's a war quote from Call of Duty 2, one that could be compared to this situation.

Joseph Stalin:

"One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic."

Depends how you put it. I want more players so theres more games. Theres barely any to join nowadays in TF2.
But you make a good point.

I wish Xbox 360 had more games with 32 player online play, that would be pretty cool.