Well, shit. Why’d we ever give that up???
'Live-service is a red flag for us': Why one publisher is embracing an older kind of multiplayer hit: peer-to-peer, server browsers, and organic community
Submitted 3 weeks ago by ampersandrew@lemmy.world to games@lemmy.world
Comments
QuandaleDingle@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Tahl_eN@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
P to P is potentially laggier, especially in farther-flung areas. It’s less secure, since the server is someone’s machine. So it’s easier for cheaters to do their thing. You also need to run a whole server alongside the client, so you need to leave a reasonable amount of perf overhead on your recommended machine that you could otherwise dedicate to just running the client.
That said, it’s cheaper to run and easier to maintain at EoL. So tradeoffs.
Truscape@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 weeks ago
Tbh that’s why community servers+p2p are the best options to have for a game - people are more than happy to host their own servers for friends and the public, and the dev doesn’t have to worry about perpetual infrastructure upkeep. Win-win.
rtxn@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Warframe’s multiplayer sessions are hosted by the players, and you can feel when the game is hosted on a Switch. The ping is consistent around 300 ms, but every action will have a second of latency and the enemies will constantly rubber-band around.
Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
It isn’t though. I mean anything has the potential to be laggy, sure. But if you’re in Europe, play on EU servers, if you’re on the US East Coast, play on East Coast servers. This isn’t rocket science.
It isn’t inherently less secure either, any server is someone else’s. In fact, I trust other players far more than I trust the publisher or whoever they’re contracting with for game servers. The players aren’t looking for additional revenue streams.
For most games, the performance hit for running the server is not significant. I think the majority of this post is pretty misguided.
QuandaleDingle@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Yep, that’s right. Thanks. :)
ampersandrew@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Money. If you can host your own servers, you won’t be peer pressured to buy the latest skins.
SomethingBurger@jlai.lu 2 weeks ago
Because publishers can’t shut down private servers to make you buy the latest entry.
DrPop@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Peer to peer shpuld at least be an option. Instead of shitting down games let the dedicated few who remain playing it support it.
False@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Still waiting on that Linux version of Killing Floor 3
popcar2@piefed.ca 2 weeks ago
Works just fine according to protondb
False@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
There was supposed to be a native version
oopsgodisdeadmybad@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
I miss server browsers. I remember (in the days before it completely turned to trash) when Black Ops 2 went to a lobby system, even on PC. It was the last CoD I ever bought. (I was gifted mw3 later, put like 4ish hours in and never went back)
Then around that time (I forget what year that was exactly, I wanna say about 2014) every other game started doing the same thing as that generation of console started to mature and really take off in the DLC world, and the land of MTX started to become an issue, choking innovation and value. Gone were the days of just buying a game and having it, and I’m came the era of splitting it up and charging for every little piece.
Personally, I’m completely against extra skins and cosmetics being sold at all, in any way, period.
Adding a huge chunk of a new campaign or new missions or something sure, but just buying different jpegs to slap over a gun model should be highly discouraged, if not outright illegalized. (insert obligatory “fuck capitalism”)
Anyway lemme get off my soap box. I forgot I still had that rage about how the industry went in that time period.
But yeah, official servers are fine, and even having a lobby thing is fine, but server browsers are how you build community in the games. Back then clans and guilds could rent (or own) their own dedicated servers that could set their own rules and such. You would find rules and maps and gametypes you liked and just hang out there, and organically get to know the other people that frequent that niche.
Now you just get randomized groups and (at least in my experience) rarely ever run into the same people more than once. I think this promotes anger and negativity, since (again, my experience) players rarely blame themselves ever, and if they have no emotional stake in treating the person at the other end of the connection, it turns into total blame game. Somebody will then leave in a huff (often in the middle of a game) and even the even tempered, relaxed players will get upset that “is happening again”. But if you (using the royal “you” here) know at least some of them, you tend to treat them as humans more often.
It’s just a better system overall.
ampersandrew@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I never felt like I formed a community on servers out of a server browser. I did get that years later on Discord. Matchmaking was always a far better experience, but the population will drop eventually, so you need the server browser.
oopsgodisdeadmybad@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
If you only wanna play by default rules, then matchmaking is probably great for you.
Otherwise, hard disagree with that. I always like playing with community rules. Like, for instance, back on the first CoDs (1, UO, and 2) my favorite way was to play with only bolt action guns (got those not in the know, they mostly had small clips (5 shots (10 in 2 loaded clips on the British gun)), and each shot was fired singularly, and had to be manually rechambered, meaning there was a delay between shots as well. So it wasn’t just run in and hold down the trigger and hope everyone was dead before you gun stopped shooting kinda game (felt super lame), but actually required aim and accuracy.
That was never a default rule, and while I could still pick that gun on almost any server, the bullet spam (especially against players on the Russian team, og CoD players know exactly what I’m talking about) made it a voluntary nerf unless they were really bad.
So everyone playing with those guns was highly preferable IMO, and that couldn’t happen with matchmaking.
Or for a different example, while “gun game” is a fairly popular mod now (the one where everyone starts with the same gun, and when you get a kill you move on to a new gun, and have to complete a set list of kills first, and usually the last few weapons are harder to get a kill with, and getting a melee kill would set the victim back a weapon), but back during Counter Strike: Source’s era, it was fairly new (not sure where it actually started, but that was the first game I experienced it) and was only available on community servers.
Maybe you’re fine with the “default” experience, but even with a browser list, most servers run default (or very close to), but I like seeing what mods get traction and seeing if any of them are something I like.
But everything has a battle pass now, and lots of battle pass progress is tied to it.
I wanna go back to a world with zero overall progression and battle pass stuff. Hell, I don’t even want achievements. They can release skins, but should probably be just all free, it maaaaybe tied to playing and doing a version number of things that you would commonly do, maybe with a time window. But really, all DLC should be free extra content. Absolute zero cost to all DLC.
Games should not be put out with intent to continue profiting from MTX. There shouldn’t be any MTX.
I can rant all day, but zoomers will never know the peak of online gaming. It’s already history.
TwinTitans@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Red flag for me too.
vulgarcynic@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Tripwire Interactive is the publisher. The article specifically mentions Deceive Inc.