By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony - Sony's lack of Dedicated Servers

 

Should Sony use Dedicated servers to all there 1st party games?

Yes, it should be standard this generation. 101 56.42%
 
No. 78 43.58%
 
Total:179
AlfredoTurkey said:
Yes. Back when I owned a PS4 and PS Plus (got it at launch) I was shocked at just how slow and unreliable their service was. I use to own a PS3 and 360, and always preferred XBL but when I heard Sony was upping their services, I decided to go PS4 first this generation. Man, what a mistake it was for me. I don't know about everyone else, but the service was horrible. Between the mandatory maintenance downtimes, capped download speeds(I pay or 60 down, and the PS4 capped it at 24), hacker attacks which, for some reason, Sony can't fix for days and days and just general shoddiness, I just couldn't take it and sold the thing.

Now, I have a Wii-U and an Xbox One. Xbox Live is pretty much been the opposite of PSN for me. No mandatory down times, no speed cap at all, totally dependable etc. I'm still going to get a PS4, maybe this holiday, but when I do, it's going to be an offline console where I own it strictly for first party exclusives. Anything like FPS etc. that depend on a great internet connection is going to be on the bone.

I hope Sony can catch up though because the PS4 is a great system. It deserves a great online service to go with it.

Psst, dedicated servers have nothing what so ever to do with content servers.



Around the Network

So get host, have an advantage and win every time!

When you are host in CoD, the game gets remarkably easier. Very unfair advantage.



Normchacho said:
LudicrousSpeed said:
MS doesn't use enough dedicated servers, either.

lol @ anyone who voted no to this. "Nah, I don't need better MP connections, thanks".


Yeah! LOLOLOLOL Why don't they use dedicated servers to provide a better online experience, you know, like Driveclub, or MCC...

You're confusing bad net code with dedicated server issues. An understandable but still not excusable mistake.

I mean we could both list a bunch of shitty P2P and shitty dedicated server games. It doesn't change the fact that dedicated servers are superior for online play. The only real downside for pubs like Sony and MS is cost, which imho the subs of XBLG and PS+ should make up for.



I've played games on and not on dedicated servers, end of the day, most of the time I do not know whether they are there or not. I still oft enjoy the game. So no



LudicrousSpeed said:
Normchacho said:
LudicrousSpeed said:
MS doesn't use enough dedicated servers, either.

lol @ anyone who voted no to this. "Nah, I don't need better MP connections, thanks".


Yeah! LOLOLOLOL Why don't they use dedicated servers to provide a better online experience, you know, like Driveclub, or MCC...

You're confusing bad net code with dedicated server issues. An understandable but still not excusable mistake.

I mean we could both list a bunch of shitty P2P and shitty dedicated server games. It doesn't change the fact that dedicated servers are superior for online play. The only real downside for pubs like Sony and MS is cost, which imho the subs of XBLG and PS+ should make up for.


What I'm saying is that just because a game has dedicated servers doesn't necessarily mean it's superior.

 

As for the benefits of DS, I'll direct you to Tachikoma.



Bet with Adamblaziken:

I bet that on launch the Nintendo Switch will have no built in in-game voice chat. He bets that it will. The winner gets six months of avatar control over the other user.

Around the Network
Sharpryno said:
So get host, have an advantage and win every time!

When you are host in CoD, the game gets remarkably easier. Very unfair advantage.


100% of the time I am not host (our internet is sub par) and I've never had problems carrying my team in demolition. The only game where host advantage was too real, actually was Gears of War 1 lol. I truly adore the first three games but if you went up against host in a shotty battle, you were going to lose and that was that.



There you go, Uncharted 4 will have under 90 metacritic scores cause reviewers are going to feel the disadvantages when playing online without dedicated server and take points off their review.



Dedicated servers aren't that big of a deal in most cases. If the host's bandwidth and ping is good enough (and that's no big ask nowadays), and the networking code doesn't impact the game's performance (in a game like U4 or CoD, it really shouldn't), P2P shouldn't be an issue at all.

What this discussion should really be about is these added subscription costs for PSN and XBL. That's just a money maker for those platforms with no inherent benefit to the gamer, and probably not even to the publishers.
I kind of blame MS for setting that trend.



aLkaLiNE said:
Sharpryno said:
So get host, have an advantage and win every time!

When you are host in CoD, the game gets remarkably easier. Very unfair advantage.


100% of the time I am not host (our internet is sub par) and I've never had problems carrying my team in demolition. The only game where host advantage was too real, actually was Gears of War 1 lol. I truly adore the first three games but if you went up against host in a shotty battle, you were going to lose and that was that.

Dude, trust.  The host advantage in CoD was completely massive.  It is very much the reason why in amateur competitive play, the team's switch hosts every map.

Another CON is if the host turns off his console instead of backs out, the game will end as it will not have a chance to transfer hosts.



I dont see a diference nowdays