Another reason P2P hosted games are Trouble !!

Recommended Videos

Jaqen Hghar

New member
Feb 11, 2009
630
0
0
TPiddy said:
Actually, your analogy is incorrect in this case. The removal of dedicated servers was a result of piracy, and an attempt to cut down on piracy. Apparently having dedicated servers makes the game easier to pirate and mod and cheat on and that's what led to the removal of them. So PC owners reap what they sow. To modify your analogy to fit this case, it would be like your girlfriend refusing to give you any more head because you raped her, and not the other way around.
Yeah, that doesn't make sense at all.
Most of the people who pirate games never get to play the MP part, and if they do they have to confine themselves to private servers. So if they wanted to do anything to prevent this game from being pirated, they would have to do something to the singleplayer portion of the game. As Mr.Tea says above me, if pirates manage to hack the game enough they might end up with a game with more features than the non pirated one.

This move has only made it more likely for this game to be pirated. Since the Singleplayer is supposed to be so damned good (meh) I guess a lot of people would like to play it. But 60$ for a 5 hour singleplayer and MP that might not even work properly if you got the wrong internet provider? Who got that much money to spare these days?

I am looking forward to seeing the estimate number of pirated copies of this game the weeks to come. I bet they will be higher than the last game, that's for sure.
 

jamesworkshop

New member
Sep 3, 2008
2,683
0
0
Dys said:
I'm far more worried about the emerging trend of 'no lan' and, in MW2s case, 'no console'. The no console thing especially ruins that game as computers are not consoles and custom settings are often necissary.

*edit* Apparently I'm confusing people. When I say "computers are not consoles and custom settings are often necissary" what I mean is, the removal of the option to alter game settings via console (the ` button menu that allows the input of various commands) directly lessons the experience for PC gamers. Not all PCs are born equal and as such they each have different needs and tweaks. While all console gamers are garunteed a playable experience straight out of the box, PC gamers are not. I'll skim right past all the various reasons why effects or settings may create problems on a PC and skip right to the point, if light setting 1B is creating a visual glitch, it makes sense that we be able to turn it off. I'm well aware that the inclusion of console commands adds extra work(however little) for the devs, but if they are not prepared to release the game as it should be on the PC, they shouldn't at all. The PC is a difficult platform to work with, if you aren't up to the challenge then do what so many other devs have done in the past, and not work with it.
If you want their is probably an config.ini file you could change for things like custom resolutions sure its not as convinent as in game editting but not a total loss
 

Captain_Caveman

New member
Mar 21, 2009
792
0
0
Kalezian said:
Captain_Caveman said:
yet again, for the umpteenth time:

GET A BETTER INTERNET CONNECTION

seriously, you would have to be mentally inert to not look around for the best ISP's can offer, for instance my connection by itself can run awesome on both P2P and dedicated servers, why? because I don't have a limiter for bandwidth. I pay $54.95 a month for a dedicated 8mbps connection. The only time I get any lag is when Im playing with someone from Glasgow with a 24.8kbps.

I could of gotten a T1 line, but the local schools here scarred me for life with those. [tell me if this makes sense, using a T1 line to bridge five schools, ranging from pre-k to 12 within a 5 mile radius, and only using one T1 line. I forgave them for using websense as a firewall [easiest one to break through] but dear god, you dont know the horrors we went through for four years
I thought you gave up on that lame duck argument when i disassembled it last time.

Apparently you have no idea how the internet works in the U.S.
here are some sites you can educate yourself with
http://stopthecap.com
http://techdirt.com

Add in the fact that in most of the U.S. broadband is a monopoly. Minus some select urban areas where fiber is available (usually at 2-5x the cost), most people have either the option of ADSL w/ an average usable upload of about 45KBps-100KBps. or Cable (Comcast of which is the 2nd largest ISP in the U.S. if you actually read the OP) w/ an average of 90-120KB/s upload (which gets throttled to 50-60 if you use it at over 70% capacity for more than 15 mins).

And AGAIN you ignore the lag. That 90% of lag occurs between a person and their own ISP. If a person hosts a game, that lag DOUBLES. Since home connections arent sitting on backbones that also means that the spectrum of lag is much larger the farther people are from eachother. So if you like playing w/ friends in different states you can expect 50-150ms more lag w/ P2P, than if you were using a dedicated server.

p.s. Some games P2P is fine for as they are co-op and not competitive. Or if they dont rely heavily on timing or accuracy. But a FPS is HEAVILY RELIANT on accuracy, latency, QoS, bandwidth, & reliability.
 

Pingieking

New member
Sep 19, 2009
1,362
0
0
Well, this looks like a fun game of fire fight. I remember reading this kind of thing between Kalezian and the Cap from another thread. It's kind of funny how some people come back again and again with ignorant replies.

But, yeah... everyone should have seen this coming. Home internet connections aren't able to handle the amount of traffic needed for hosting most P2P systems.

Now, lets get back to DOA.
 

shadow skill

New member
Oct 12, 2007
2,850
0
0
Pingieking said:
Well, this looks like a fun game of fire fight. I remember reading this kind of thing between Kalezian and the Cap from another thread. It's kind of funny how some people come back again and again with ignorant replies.

But, yeah... everyone should have seen this coming. Home internet connections aren't able to handle the amount of traffic needed for hosting most P2P systems.

Now, lets get back to DOA.
Dragon Age is an awesome albeit slightly flawed game. I will probably pick this up for the PC after I repair my machine. I'm 18 hours in on the PS3 version and I've been enjoying just about every minute.
 

Flour

New member
Mar 20, 2008
1,868
0
0
Captain_Caveman said:
P2P doesn't prevent piracy. Log In servers do. They could have accomplished the same thing w/ a log in system, like for example the one BF2 has had for 4+ years.
Or, another example. Look at Steam. Steam games use dedicated servers. But they have authetication. Multiplayer can't be played on pirated Steam games.
You mean the hundreds of illegal BF2 servers you're able to find by using google...

You just find one of the MANY Hamachi servers and play Steam games over a virtual LAN.
Sure it's still P2P(IIRC Steam requires all IPs in a LAN to be within a certain range) but I'm sure there's another way to do this with dedicated servers. Not that I care about finding out how, Valve is basically the only developer I still buy the games of.

jamesworkshop said:
If you want their is probably an config.ini file you could change for things like custom resolutions sure its not as convinent as in game editting but not a total loss
Eh, you do know that in just about every CoD game, both Punkbuster and servers are able to FORCE players to use specific settings, or kick those that use the 'wrong' settings.


On-Topic: Heh, it will be really fun when you get the users that have a massive upload speed(like I have) but a computer that's unable to play the game and process the data for multiple people(again, like my computer).
 

Dys

New member
Sep 10, 2008
2,343
0
0
jamesworkshop said:
Dys said:
I'm far more worried about the emerging trend of 'no lan' and, in MW2s case, 'no console'. The no console thing especially ruins that game as computers are not consoles and custom settings are often necissary.

*edit* Apparently I'm confusing people. When I say "computers are not consoles and custom settings are often necissary" what I mean is, the removal of the option to alter game settings via console (the ` button menu that allows the input of various commands) directly lessons the experience for PC gamers. Not all PCs are born equal and as such they each have different needs and tweaks. While all console gamers are garunteed a playable experience straight out of the box, PC gamers are not. I'll skim right past all the various reasons why effects or settings may create problems on a PC and skip right to the point, if light setting 1B is creating a visual glitch, it makes sense that we be able to turn it off. I'm well aware that the inclusion of console commands adds extra work(however little) for the devs, but if they are not prepared to release the game as it should be on the PC, they shouldn't at all. The PC is a difficult platform to work with, if you aren't up to the challenge then do what so many other devs have done in the past, and not work with it.
If you want their is probably an config.ini file you could change for things like custom resolutions sure its not as convinent as in game editting but not a total loss
It is far less conviniant and will eliminate the 'trail and error' approach to fixing issues. It also introduces an array of problems with lan games, as you can no longer "/connect" to a game, if you get disconnected (for whatever reason, it's far more likely to happen to a PC gamer than a console one) you cannot "/reconnect" etc.

Captain_Caveman said:
Dys said:
The P2P system isn't that huge of an issue if it's given the same support it is on the console counterparts, console gamers get by fine using it (though xbox live is beyond shit, PSN seems usable on my connection). The real problem is who's going to fund it? There's no sony or microsoft wanting the P2P service to be a sucess on the PC. It can be done well....
i agree w/ a lot of what you said but this i don't. it's not a matter of just how well it can match people. XBL probably has the most advanced P2P matchmaking taking even ISP & locale into account. But, that still cant fix the problem of if you wanted to play w/ a friend{s} who lived in another state, used a different ISP, etc..

And it still doesn't solve the problem of ISP's throttling peoples upload once they start hosting a game.

Take for the Comcast example in my OP. Comcast will reduce your upload by 1/2 [http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1050238/comcast-internet-throttling-running], half the speed that the matchmaking service rated you for when it picked you for host. That can have devastating effects on the QoS (Quality of Service [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_service]) of peoples connections and play havoc w/ a multiplayer game.
Oh I don't mean to say it's a good system by any means. I don't have a statistic to whip out, but host computers are significantly more likely to crash than host consoles, which would fuck up the entire game. so even before the ISPs are considered the option is grossly unsuited to computers. As an Australian, I'm used of ISPs gratuitously throttling internet speeds, to the point where steam cannot be opened. However I have no problem hosting servers with players several thousand KMs away, it's only really an issue with people overseas (I regularly play DotA in Mebourne with people in Perth, which isn't exactly close). The point I was making though, is that sony and microsoft pour lots of money into Xbox live and PSN to make them viable platforms, nobody is doing this on computer. Simply saying 'well it works for console gamers, you have nothing to complain about' is stupid, sure it could work for PC gamers, but I somehow don't think IW plan on heavily cutting into profits so they can enforce a paralell (yet not better) multiplayer system that the community doesn't want.

All the console kids (who clearly don't ever game on PCs) seem to think we expect more from PC games compared to their console counterparts, and I suppose we do want different. It's justified, the PC needs more to work in the same way as the console games do, it's a far more difficult platform with countless variables altering how the game can/will play. Imagine how much of a pain in the ass it would be if consoles used dedicated servers, the reason they don't is because that format isn't suited to the platform and when every console is on equal grounds (in terms of performance/capabilities), the chances of hosts crashing games is low, so why not use P2P? We don't expect better gameplay or extra game content, but we do expect the game to be set up for gaming on a PC, if I wanted to play a console game I'd play on either my Xbox 360 or PS3. That's what they are for.
 

Pingieking

New member
Sep 19, 2009
1,362
0
0
Kalezian said:
ill just comment on the parts I find funny:

Add in the fact that in most of the U.S. broadband is a monopoly. Minus some select urban areas where fiber is available (usually at 2-5x the cost), most people have either the option of ADSL w/ an average usable upload of about 45KBps-100KBps. or Cable (Comcast of which is the 2nd largest ISP in the U.S. if you actually read the OP) w/ an average of 90-120KB/s upload (which gets throttled to 50-60 if you use it at over 70% capacity for more than 15 mins).
sooooo................ change your ISP.......... seriously its not hard.
I like how you completely ignored what he wrote, it makes for some great flaming.
His first sentence kind of stated that in a lot of cases THERE IS NO WAY TO CHANGE ISP! And I agree. My game-tester friend is using the fastest (non-fiber, cause that's fucking expensive and not worth the money, and I don't even think it's available here) home connection available, and according to him it plays like most of the PC P2P FPS systems; annoying and sometimes death-inducing.

Where I live, there are two ISPs. Trouble is, they offer the exact same connection for the same price, so effectively we have one ISP. Since you seem to know how to change to a better connection, care to teach me?

I have to check my internet policy to see if they do that crazy "throttling" business here. I don't think they do, since I'd probably notice even a 50% decrease in speed. That's a pretty asshole-ish move that the ISP pulls.
Dys said:
Well said, sir. Well said.
Arbitrary Cidin said:
Stop acting spoiled and try to focus more on the aspects of gaming, not bandwidth and lag.
Funny how lag is a very important aspect of online gaming, no?
 

Arbitrary Cidin

New member
Apr 16, 2009
731
0
0
Wicky_42 said:
Arbitrary Cidin said:
Oh boy, PC gamers, I feel so bad for you. Why, little old me wouldn't know what that's like on my Xbox 360, would I? Stop acting spoiled and try to focus more on the aspects of gaming, not bandwidth and lag. I've never played a single game with dedicated servers in my life, and I'm a happy multiplayer gamer.
Hah, because Pc gamers are used to fast servers they should suck it up and downgrade to console p2p gaming because *you're* used to it?! Fuck off, lol.
I'm just saying that people are going about this like it's going to completely ruin the game. The remedy is as simple as "This game I just joined is lagging; I'm going to quit and Quick Join a new one." This seriously isn't as big of a deal as people are making it out to be, but because you're not used to having these "setbacks", it's freaking people out. Like I said, you can be happy in multiplayer WITHOUT dedicated servers. People just need to realize that and stop whining.
 

Captain_Caveman

New member
Mar 21, 2009
792
0
0
Flour said:
Captain_Caveman said:
P2P doesn't prevent piracy. Log In servers do. They could have accomplished the same thing w/ a log in system, like for example the one BF2 has had for 4+ years.
Or, another example. Look at Steam. Steam games use dedicated servers. But they have authetication. Multiplayer can't be played on pirated Steam games.
You mean the hundreds of illegal BF2 servers you're able to find by using google...

You just find one of the MANY Hamachi servers and play Steam games over a virtual LAN.
Sure it's still P2P(IIRC Steam requires all IPs in a LAN to be within a certain range) but I'm sure there's another way to do this with dedicated servers. Not that I care about finding out how, Valve is basically the only developer I still buy the games of.
You're missing the point. P2P DOES NOT PREVENT or have anything to even do WITH PIRACY. Log In servers are the ONLY way to have any impact on it. No matter what the game will be cracked & people who pirate it for single player will do it no matter what they do to multiplayer. People who pirate it and play multiplayer will have to jump through more hoops. That's the only difference. And the number of hoops is more dependent on a log in server than it is how the game is hosted. The idea that IW.NET matchmaking can't be bypassed when as you admit even Steam can be bypassed w/ enough effort is ridikilis (sp on purpose). :p So people who are willing to play on unofficial servers are STILL going to. It's only punishing people who actually buy the game and play official multiplayer.

It's just like when Sony put rootkits on music CDs. Which antiviruses couldnt catch and they opened up a backdoor for tons of keyloggers and trojans from port scanning bots. They supposedly did it in the name of stopping piracy, but all it did is ruin peoples computers who wanted to listen to a CD they legitmately bought. The people who pirated (downloaded MP3s) didn't suffer, the actual legit customers did.
 

Captain_Caveman

New member
Mar 21, 2009
792
0
0
Kalezian said:
ill just comment on the parts I find funny:

Add in the fact that in most of the U.S. broadband is a monopoly. Minus some select urban areas where fiber is available (usually at 2-5x the cost), most people have either the option of ADSL w/ an average usable upload of about 45KBps-100KBps. or Cable (Comcast of which is the 2nd largest ISP in the U.S. if you actually read the OP) w/ an average of 90-120KB/s upload (which gets throttled to 50-60 if you use it at over 70% capacity for more than 15 mins).
sooooo................ change your ISP.......... seriously its not hard.
Do you not know what monopoly means? I'm also so surprised at your lack of knowledge about available internet connections. And the fact that you think an average of 75KB/s is adequate for a multiplayer FPS server shows you have never actually run a real server. Back in the BF1942 days we used more than that for servers the same size. A 64 player server would use about 650MB uploading an hour. You know how much CoD4 used on PC? 6KBps PER PERSON, upload from host (that's not counting download). Now lets say you used the U.S.'s 2nd largest broadband ISP, Comcast. You get picked to be host because they test you upload at 100KBps; now you already have insufficient bandwidth to host a 9 v 9 so there's going to be lost packets involved there. But when you get throttled to 50KBps, suddenly you have about enough bandwidth to host a 4 v 4 game; yet you're hosting more than double that. What do you think the consequences of that are going to be?

Now the only way around this would be to reduce the netcode (which is done on console version but not noticed because it's compensated for w/ auto-aim, larger hitboxes & more interpolation.) And that only screws up accuracy of what's actually happening & introduces "WTF" moments. it's already about as simplified as it can be while still maintaining decent responsiveness. that's why console netcode doesnt translate correctly to PC where keyboard & mouse are used; & auto-aim is considered cheating.

And AGAIN you ignore the lag. That 90% of lag occurs between a person and their own ISP. If a person hosts a game, that lag DOUBLES. Since home connections aren't sitting on backbones that also means that the spectrum of lag is much larger the farther people are from each other. So if you like playing w/ friends in different states you can expect 50-150ms more lag w/ P2P, than if you were using a dedicated server.
actually, I addressed the lag when I said the only noticeable lag I get is when the seconda is using second gen. internet connections. also, for pulling numbers out of where Mr. Hands used to take it, I almost agreed with you at the 50-150 part till I realized you tagged 'more' along with it. on my connection, a regular 8mbps mind you, I get an average of 50-80 ping within the Northern American [Mexico, America, Canadia-land], add roughly 2-9 more ping should they still be using AOL. the only point that my ping jumps over 100 is when Im playing with Europe players [ironically enough, I get fairly good connections with German players than the rest of Europe]. But by what you're saying is that I shoudn't be able to play at all on p2p games with people across the pond.
You admit yourself that your game can be influence by the lowest common denominator yet you keep insisting that it's a non issue. you're contradicting yourself. it also completely invalidates your "just get a better connection" argument as most people wont & have average connections. Fiber penetration in the U.S. is about 4%. That means virtually 96% use DOCSIS 2 or ADSL (there are a few DOCSIS 3 test areas & some places u can still get SDSL but they're mostly business lines & cost $100s a month). If you understood DOCSIS you would understand how much lag is involved. (i'm also calling bullsh** on your ping statement. i connect w/ friends in europe sometimes and ping is NOWHERE NEAR what youre claiming. UK, germany, finland, russia; always higher than in the U.S. In the U.S. to a dedicated server i can get 40-100. average 70. P2P on console i get 120-200 average. Just because you don't understand technology & can't see past your own insulated word doesnt mean every1 in the world is using next gen tech. In fact if you went to the sites i linked you to you would see that ISPs are so reluctant to that cities have been threatening to roll out their own fiber. (ISPs have even tried to sue, because in the U.S. they were given permission to have a virtual monopoly as incentive to roll out cable to all areas back in the 80s)

ps 8mbps i assume is your DL. which means NOTHING in P2P. upload is the only important stat.


p.s. Some games P2P is fine for as they are co-op and not competitive. Or if they dont rely heavily on timing or accuracy. But a FPS is HEAVILY RELIANT on accuracy, latency, QoS, bandwidth, & reliability.
Im not going to argue with this, as FPS's do rely on accuracy, latency, Bandwidth and the like, but I have a library of competitive FPS games that use p2p that will also say that you are full of shit with your arguments.

let me ask you this, have you played MW2 yet.

If you have provide proof and I might take you seriously.
no i'm not going to buy it. Why should i buy something which i know is going to have problems & have compromises? I'm sorry, but i know how the technology works & i'm not just going to take their word for it. they can't fundamentally change the way the internet works. Console users don't notice it because they have things like auto-aim, artificial host lag, extra-large-hitboxes & forgiving control schemes. If they were using a mouse they wouldve be unsatisfied w/ the result long ago.

oh, and what is in this "library of FPS games" you talk about? What games, for what platforms? I really get a strong feeling off you that you know nothing about networking & have virtually no experience w/ PC FPS games. I've been console gaming online since crimson skies, halo 2 & socom. I've been PC gaming online since i used to direct dial my friends over the telephone & play Duke Nukem 3D.

You keep talking about your "8mbps connection" and saying "just upgrade"; when both of those things (DL speed) & doubling the cost of your monthly internet (if that's even an option as most of the U.S. is monopolized re: broadband) were really relevant. You're an apologist.
 

TPiddy

New member
Aug 28, 2009
2,359
0
0
I'm not saying that what they're doing is right.... I'm just passing on information. They removed dedicated servers to cut down on modding and pirating, and to make the game 'more accessible' to the general PC using public.

Don't yell at me. I'm just the messenger.