Conkerkid11
Member
I mean, if in this alternate universe Apple products are the most affordable for the performance they offer, and developers tend to prioritize the performance of their products on their Apple's hardware, then yes.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
I find it hard to accept the idea of paying for online multiplayer on consoles
- Thread starter ArtHands
- Start date
Curious, do you think it's free for players to host their own servers?
chillybright
Banned
...
Because you have to pay for a service that's available for free somewhere else?
You were saying that I said free stuff has to be better quality-wise. I never said that.
ArtHands
Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
Um, get what? Is there a significant increase of games for people to enjoy on console now? I cant say that is the case.
TheRedSnifit
Member
For everybody but the guy operating it.
I'm curious about what you're getting at here. Are you suggesting that Sony puts your Plus money towards dedicated servers?
LordRaptor
Member
Technically P2P is a player hosting their own server
ScottSullivan
Member
With the recent PSN price increase, it really pushes me further into wanting to just go PC only again, shit is rediculous
LordRaptor
Member
But they're """""free"""""!
BlazeHedgehog
Member
I may have told this story on GAF before.
Back in 2010 or 2011, I won a "lifetime supply" of Xbox Live Gold from Microsoft for one of those "download and win" sweepstakes they'd have on the 360 dashboard -- you know, where you'd download a branded gamerpic and that would count as an entry?
"Lifetime" by their standards was 30 years, shipped to me in a big cardboard box as 30 individually packaged 12-month subscription cards.
I gave away some of them to friends, sold others, but I kept three cards for myself. Three years is the maximum pre-paid amount you can have, and there was no guarantee how long these cards would even still be usable (and the release forms I signed when I won explicitly pointed this fact out). So, it was kind of a "use it now or lose it" situation for me.
After my three years ran out, I had no desire to pay for Xbox Live Gold. These sorts of premium subscriber services are some of the biggest scams in gaming right now. There is nothing that they offer that is actually worth paying the subscription fee for. You may think there is, because it is something you have paid for and use frequently, but that in my opinion is just part of the scheme. Everything about those services has been engineered to create a false sense of value.
Like, for example, the "pay the subscription fee and get games for free." Those games aren't free. If they were free, these companies would be hemorrhaging money by giving away literal hundreds of dollars of games every month. But they aren't, are they? In fact, developers like Psyonix say that services like Playstation Plus made Rocket League more successful than they would have been otherwise. It's almost like you're paying Sony to be their marketing team. In return, you get a shiny status symbol that says you're rich enough to afford the subscription.
And multiplayer matchmaking? Paying for that is a joke. That's not to say running that service costs $0, but compared to the kinds of expenses in modern games, it would probably cost 5% or less of a game's overall budget. In my case, when I had Xbox Live Gold for those three years, the games I wanted to pay weren't populated with players anyway. How many resources are being wasted for games that aren't even active anymore? Are you comfortable paying for the ability to have players sitting in a Puzzle Fighter HD lobby for an hour and never getting a match?
It's all a farce. It's fake value generated by marketing engineers who sit in board rooms all day and figure out new ways to get people to pay for things they don't actually need. It's the same line of thinking Microsoft had over making you pay $2 for Xbox 360 wallpapers, except somehow this one stuck.
Don't pay for Xbox Live Gold. Or PS+.
Back in 2010 or 2011, I won a "lifetime supply" of Xbox Live Gold from Microsoft for one of those "download and win" sweepstakes they'd have on the 360 dashboard -- you know, where you'd download a branded gamerpic and that would count as an entry?
"Lifetime" by their standards was 30 years, shipped to me in a big cardboard box as 30 individually packaged 12-month subscription cards.
I gave away some of them to friends, sold others, but I kept three cards for myself. Three years is the maximum pre-paid amount you can have, and there was no guarantee how long these cards would even still be usable (and the release forms I signed when I won explicitly pointed this fact out). So, it was kind of a "use it now or lose it" situation for me.
After my three years ran out, I had no desire to pay for Xbox Live Gold. These sorts of premium subscriber services are some of the biggest scams in gaming right now. There is nothing that they offer that is actually worth paying the subscription fee for. You may think there is, because it is something you have paid for and use frequently, but that in my opinion is just part of the scheme. Everything about those services has been engineered to create a false sense of value.
Like, for example, the "pay the subscription fee and get games for free." Those games aren't free. If they were free, these companies would be hemorrhaging money by giving away literal hundreds of dollars of games every month. But they aren't, are they? In fact, developers like Psyonix say that services like Playstation Plus made Rocket League more successful than they would have been otherwise. It's almost like you're paying Sony to be their marketing team. In return, you get a shiny status symbol that says you're rich enough to afford the subscription.
And multiplayer matchmaking? Paying for that is a joke. That's not to say running that service costs $0, but compared to the kinds of expenses in modern games, it would probably cost 5% or less of a game's overall budget. In my case, when I had Xbox Live Gold for those three years, the games I wanted to pay weren't populated with players anyway. How many resources are being wasted for games that aren't even active anymore? Are you comfortable paying for the ability to have players sitting in a Puzzle Fighter HD lobby for an hour and never getting a match?
It's all a farce. It's fake value generated by marketing engineers who sit in board rooms all day and figure out new ways to get people to pay for things they don't actually need. It's the same line of thinking Microsoft had over making you pay $2 for Xbox 360 wallpapers, except somehow this one stuck.
Don't pay for Xbox Live Gold. Or PS+.
SeeNoWeevil
Member
No it isn't. You don't understand what P2P is. Very few games are P2P.
TheRedSnifit
Member
True, but that's not quite the situation I was referring to.
babyghost853
Member
Now everyone defending this, please tell my why we should pay to use a connection we already pay for? Or whatever it is you think we are actually paying for.
LordRaptor
Member
Yes it is. Yes I do. No, it is super common on console.
Sure.
Separate but related, it's a shame games tend not to release dedicated server builds anymore, given the proliferation of excess bandwidth and domestic use fileservers etc nowadays.
SeeNoWeevil
Member
Do you genuinely think your broadband connection and PSN are the same thing provided by the same company? Serious question.
Now everyone defending this, please tell my why we should pay to use a connection we already pay for? Or whatever it is you think we are actually paying for.
SeeNoWeevil
Member
You even used the phrase 'hosting a server' while still calling it peer-to-peer. If there is a server controlling central game state, it is not P2P. In P2P, each player connects to each other without a central server. No, this is not common, how would that even work for say, an online shooter?
Educate yourself
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-to-peer
"without the need for central coordination by servers"
TheRedSnifit
Member
It's a colloquial usage that even developers use.
No, it's not literally peer-to-peer. You know what he means.
LordRaptor
Member
In P2P gaming, one player is the host and is the authoritative client that other clients send and receive information from. That player has what is commonly called "Host Advantage".
If that player disconnects, another player is elevated to be Host with what is commonly called "Host Migration".
In cases where there is a dedicated server, there aren't any clients that are deemed authoritative, there is a completely independent host that all players send and receive information from, and there is no Host Advantage or Host Migration.
As a dedicated server is literally just resolving information sent to it, it doesn't need much in the way of resources outside of sufficient bandwidth to process the number of players networking with it, so it is extremely common for a single server to host multiple dedicated servers via VMs.
If you don't know how modern games are actually networking, you shouldn't tell people to "educate themselves" with wikipedia articles describing abstract concepts.
SeeNoWeevil
Member
No it isn't. It's completely wrong and I've never heard anyone with an ounce of technical understanding use it. Only ignorant forum-goers trying to points score in a system wars argument against console gaming.
Negotiator
Member
p2p isn't a problem. It's the low tick rate (like 10-15 Hz low) that drives me mad and no one makes a fuss about it.
Lag compensation negates host advantage completely. We don't live in the 90s anymore where low ping gave you a huge advantage. Get with the times.
The only good thing about dedicated servers is that they have almost zero downtime. Then again, if country A has a server and players from a distant country B don't have any local server, then in that case p2p is better (less latency for everyone).
Lag compensation negates host advantage completely. We don't live in the 90s anymore where low ping gave you a huge advantage. Get with the times.
The only good thing about dedicated servers is that they have almost zero downtime. Then again, if country A has a server and players from a distant country B don't have any local server, then in that case p2p is better (less latency for everyone).
Yangshouwen
Banned
Really?
Because the 4 Free games with Xbox are worth it alone.
Because the 4 Free games with Xbox are worth it alone.
Next up is ISPs doing it to all Internet traffic.
"Oh you wanna access Facebook? Well that's a different package, you only have the entertainment one which allows YouTube, Netflix, and Hulu. You need the social package."
There's little to no reason for it, it's just another revenue stream with enough of small rewards (in form of "free" games, and "exclusive" features) to make it palatable enough for the consumer to swallow. These are tactics that the telecom industry has used forever.
I paid into this as well, because I wanted to play with my friends online on my Xbox so I'm part of this problem as well.
"Oh you wanna access Facebook? Well that's a different package, you only have the entertainment one which allows YouTube, Netflix, and Hulu. You need the social package."
There's little to no reason for it, it's just another revenue stream with enough of small rewards (in form of "free" games, and "exclusive" features) to make it palatable enough for the consumer to swallow. These are tactics that the telecom industry has used forever.
I paid into this as well, because I wanted to play with my friends online on my Xbox so I'm part of this problem as well.
TheRedSnifit
Member
http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showpost.php?p=25569580&postcount=14
Developers of PayDay using the term in such a way. But maybe they're tech-ignorant morons, I dunno.
I agree... But that's not true.
If that was true, Multiplayer wouldn't be locked behind Gold. But it is because the fact of the matter is, very few people actually get the free games and even less play them. The Crew on XB1 only had 3M downloads and that's an AAA game. The average downloads per game at the 100M downloads milestone (April 2015 I think) was only 1.7M/game.
P2P isn't common on consoles this gen. Last gen it was exceedingly common and very few games (Battlefield being an example) used dedicated servers. This gen though it's a totally different story, you won't find a situation where a multiplat game uses dedicated on PC but P2P on consoles.
LordRaptor
Member
Funny, because that is literally how people who make games refer to it, including the people who actually program network code, but continue to cite a false claim to authority on this and believe what the fuck you want to.
This is literally how the two networking methods are described in things like technical design documents.
e:
Its still the most common networking solution for games. Any game that provides a dedicated server tool will have dedicated servers on Pc, where consoles are still P2P.
The major change here is actually that companies have tended to stop providing dedicated server tools, not that Live / PSN have started using dedicated as standard.
SeeNoWeevil
Member
In P2P, all clients are equal and communicate with each other, that is the whole point. The clue is in the bloody name! Voice comms in online play is P2P, as are fighting games, some racing games. A lack of dedicated servers, does not make it P2P, it just means.. there is no dedicated server. I've been a software developer for nearly 20 years. I know what bloody P2P is.Funny, because that is literally how people who make games refer to it, including the people who actually program network code, but continue to cite a false claim to authority on this and believe what the fuck you want to.
This is literally how the two networking methods are described in things like technical design documents.
hooijdonk17
Member
You are completely reaching and arguing semantics in defense of multiplayer monetization. It's sad to watch, really.
A server hosted on one peer with all other peers connected to it is still technically Peer 2 Peer. As long as you have no external dedicated server moderating gameplay, it's P2P. Just because a central server node is involved does not make it a regular client-server connection. This is more evident in the fact that when the hosting server disconnects, the server duties migrate to another peer. There is no set server, everyone is a peer. What you are describing is just ONE KIND OF P2P.
TheRedSnifit
Member
Nearly all exclusives, such as Uncharted 4, use
Yes but the usage of the term P2P in online gaming is colloquially used to refer to instances where a player hosts a server using his own connection and everyone else connects to that player. Eventhough that's different from what real P2P is...In gaming terms that's what it means and is what people refer to.
LordRaptor
Member
Unless that's been in the specific area of videogame networking, again, thats a false citation of authority.
It's not super common these days. There's more Dedi's than P2P. P2P is really rare now
Is Uncharted 4 the latest big game to use P2P or is that dedi?
Other than that there's none I can think of (finally!).
Edit: I've made the same fatal mistake of marking P2P as client-host. Hey-ho, we've called it P2P for years even thought it's not.
Yea UC4 does P2P but what's your evidence that nearly all exclusives do that? Because on the MS side every first party tittle uses Azure so your claim that nearly all console exclusives do that is incorrect...and Sony doesn't really have many exclusives that also have multiplayer anyways.
It's not really common because majority of the games we have today's are multiplats and if they use dedicated on PC then they use dedicated on consoles as well. As for exclusives, as I already mentioned MS first party use dedicated, which only leaves some first party Sony games as the outliers....Not exactly what I'd call super common.
Negotiator
Member
Dedicated servers wouldn't help Uncharted 4, because Sony/ND would still cheap out on the tickrate:
http://feedback.naughtydog.com/foru...97-getting-shot-around-walls-and-behind-cover
BF4 netcode hasn't taught you anything, eh?
p2p 30-60 Hz >>>> dedis 10-15 Hz
It's basically free to increase the tickrate in a p2p game (as long as your upload speed can handle it), while it costs a lot of money in dedis (better CPUs, faster connections).
He has 20 years of experience in software development, he's surely more competent than some morons that only developped two big always-online multiplayer games.
To increase the tick-rate you still need more CPU on a console-server so your game would end up needing some settings dialed back to cope with it.
Totally know what you're getting at, but I've got to laugh as the diagram is exactly same bar the layout and the server has changed to a PS4.Funny, because that is literally how people who make games refer to it, including the people who actually program network code, but continue to cite a false claim to authority on this and believe what the fuck you want to.
This is literally how the two networking methods are described in things like technical design documents.
e:
Its still the most common networking solution for games. Any game that provides a dedicated server tool will have dedicated servers on Pc, where consoles are still P2P.
The major change here is actually that companies have tended to stop providing dedicated server tools, not that Live / PSN have started using dedicated as standard.
We just call non-dedi P2P in the gaming world even though it technically isn't.
LordRaptor
Member
Literally now literally means figuratively - terms end up meaning what they are commonly used to describe, not what a book classifies them as.
Tick rates are important but you are downplaying the effect Dedicated servers can have. Dedicated servers matter due to consistency of connection.
I have a 20Mbit connection, fairly average and what most people have in this country. When I play Siege I get 30-80ms of ping depending on where the server is...same for my friends. If I host a private game on my own connection my friends experience a higher pings and connection problems due to the fact that my upload speed isn't high enough to cater to 9 other people connecting to me, there might even be packet losses from time to time leading to skips. Dedicated servers by default use fast connections capable of serving multiple clients properly meaning you don't experience those issues.
hooijdonk17
Member
For education on your job refer to wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-to-peer#Hybrid_models
LordRaptor
Member
Its also how much data is transmitted, which is where the perception of connections being 'better' nowadays comes from; more and more games use client authoritative models on the assumption that consoles are unhackable so its fine to trust whatever the client says is happening, and less data needs to be transmitted.
Something like The Division on PC is where this falls flat on its arse.
If anyone makes any progress in hacking the X1 or PS4, you'll find most of those still-P2P games are busted wide open to cheaters as a result, because they were fundamentally engineered insecurely.
e:
I also think this might be one of the reasons Destiny was not released for PC, because a server authoritative model requires more data to be sent each way to verify client claims (because something like an MMO basically has to assume all clients are untrustworthy) which puts a hard cap on how fast a client can interact with other clients, which is why 'traditional' MMOs tend to abstract away direct inputs, because it gets hugely expensive in server costs very quickly.
It'll be interesting to see how Destiny 2 handles it.
Not gonna lie, it took me about 3 reads of that sentence to understand that ha.
I can imagine that a lot of the later P2P (client-host, whatever) titles did actually bend the mould of the definition and did bits of both.
Negotiator
Member
Not if you have spare CPU headroom.
Did you know that they had increased the tickrate in TLOU MP from 15 to 30 Hz?
They went back to 15 Hz, because certain players (with subpar DSL connections) experienced packet loss.
And what if someone lives in a country where there is no dedicated server?
Let's say that UC4 MP could have a UK server and there are 100 players from Cyprus playing that game... what's the benefit of transporting packets from UK to Cyprus and vice versa? Why would they enjoy having increased latency/lag compensation? And why should UK players play against Cypriots, just because they are on the same server/region (EU)?
p2p is like having servers all over the globe. Sure, not all servers will be equally good (bad upload, unstable electricity grid etc.), but it's always better to have a local server than a distant one.
As long as matchmaking is strictly ping-based (not skill-based BS), the netcode has a decent tickrate and the host selection chooses hosts with decent connections (via speedtest), then I see nothing wrong with p2p. It's a matter of implementation.
Django.Mango
Member
It was one of the the reasons i moved over to pc at 360 timeline. Iirc, you also was not able to voice chat anymore without gold. Im not sure about playing demos.
Not a big deal imo, wont support that kind of crap.
Negotiator
Member
Locking party chat behind a paywall is pretty scummy, I'll give you that.
IIRC, party chat was p2p in 360 and now it's hosted on dedis. Another advantage of dedis over p2p is that you don't have to care about NAT Types and they require less upload, since you only send one stream of data to the server and not multiple streams to multiple players (that's what true p2p is).
Luckily Sony is offering party chat for free on the PS4 & Vita, even though it's not hosted on dedis.
SprachBrooks
Member
Yup. I paid for PS+ back during the PS3 days because the service offered decent games. Ever since the introduction of paying for multiplayer on PS4, the service has gone to shit and the network itself has not improved. Let it lapse in 2014 and haven't looked back since.
Fuck paying for multiplayer.
Fuck paying for multiplayer.
which are?
It used to be PSN, but then PSN decided to fuck us over too, so where to go?
Don't say PC, this is about online multiplayer on consoles
The point being that it's not free to host a server for PC, it costs money, and basically PC players are relying on other people's willingness to pay for other people to play for free.