Update: Killzone will be peer to peer.

  • 118 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#2 Edited by R4gn4r0k (16459 posts) -

Paying for a peer to peer service. PS4, truly a next gen experience.

#3 Posted by RR360DD (11802 posts) -

Guess Sony can't afford dedicated servers even for their 1st party games, never mind 3rd party lolz

#4 Edited by ramonnl (769 posts) -

Like battlefield 3.

#5 Edited by CrownKingArthur (4687 posts) -

One must pay for playstation plus in order to play multiplayer for this title, yes?

If yes, then cows - give yourself an uppercut. you deserve it.

#6 Edited by Wasdie (49753 posts) -

It's a hybrid system with some of it still using dedicated servers. I don't know why they even bother telling this to people, it just starts a flame war. People wouldn't be any wiser if they wouldn't say a word about it.

#7 Posted by cainetao11 (17360 posts) -

One must pay for playstation plus in order to play multiplayer for this title, yes?

If yes, then cows - give yourself an uppercut. you deserve it.

Exactly. All that trash talk about paying for MP..........

#8 Posted by FPSfan1985 (2008 posts) -

I've never noticed a difference between p2p and dedicated servers.

#9 Posted by Netherscourge (16328 posts) -

@ramonnl said:

Like battlefield 3.

Which is free to play online.

#10 Posted by R4gn4r0k (16459 posts) -

@Wasdie said:

It's a hybrid system with some of it still using dedicated servers. I don't know why they even bother telling this to people, it just starts a flame war. People wouldn't be any wiser if they wouldn't say a word about it.

"Connections are still peer to peer"

Seems pretty clear to me :s

#11 Posted by Rage010101 (5470 posts) -

So in other words, still peer to peer trash.

#12 Edited by hoosier7 (3784 posts) -
@Wasdie said:

It's a hybrid system with some of it still using dedicated servers. I don't know why they even bother telling this to people, it just starts a flame war. People wouldn't be any wiser if they wouldn't say a word about it.

It's the same as they used for the last two Killzones and everyone was none the wiser then but this'll be ignored.

It's nice they're being honest, i wonder how many games employ a similar system but claim dedicated servers for the marketing.

#13 Edited by Rage010101 (5470 posts) -

I've never noticed a difference between p2p and dedicated servers.

You must be console gaming only then

#14 Posted by Wasdie (49753 posts) -

@R4gn4r0k: I don't remember saying if it was a good or bad thing nor if it was a clear message or not. Rather I said if they wouldn't say anything nobody would even know.

Hybrid systems aren't bad, in fact they offer advantages in latency. If the game still has a dedicated server that means you should be able to connect to the server without using a matchmaking or direct P2P connection, thus enabling a server browser. Also some of the game processing can be handled by the server and the clients can have direct connections which improve latency. Furthermore a lot of games use a client-side hit detection which, when done right, can be more responsive.

A lot of PC games use that system.

#15 Edited by I_can_haz (6551 posts) -

Looks like they are just being overly honest. Battlefield 3 also uses this method but DICE claims "DEDICATED SERVERS!!11" for marketing. Nothing new here, it might as well be purely dedicated servers because no one will notice the difference. It's not like past KZ games were laggy experiences. In fact, I experience more lag playing BF3 than I've ever experienced in a KZ game.

#16 Posted by FPSfan1985 (2008 posts) -

@FPSfan1985 said:

I've never noticed a difference between p2p and dedicated servers.

You must be console gaming only then

I do 90% of my gaming on PC. BUt when I play games like gears, or COD on console there is no more lag than normal. I think its just a bunch of hyperbole to use in flame wars.

#17 Edited by cainetao11 (17360 posts) -

@hoosier7 said:
@Wasdie said:

It's a hybrid system with some of it still using dedicated servers. I don't know why they even bother telling this to people, it just starts a flame war. People wouldn't be any wiser if they wouldn't say a word about it.

It's the same as they used for the last two Killzones and everyone was none the wiser then but this'll be ignored.

It's nice they're being honest, i wonder how many games employ a similar system but claim dedicated servers for the marketing.

This cracks me up if MS or Nintendo had said it, it would have been the devil incarnate.

#18 Edited by R4gn4r0k (16459 posts) -

@Wasdie: all I know is that if they expect me to pay to play online on PS4 it better not be for peer-to-peer services and host advantages.

Could you name me some PC FPS that have used that kind of system ? Perhaps I've played them without even noticing.

#19 Posted by uninspiredcup (8317 posts) -

Pc for FPS anyway. I don't really get it.

#20 Edited by XBOunity (2981 posts) -

@Wasdie: yep lets just assume psn will be on par with xbl next gen. That crow is cooking in the oven.

#21 Edited by HaRmLeSS_RaGe (1270 posts) -

Wow that sucks. No wonder Sonygaf have a new Titanfall port begging thread running lmfao

#22 Edited by R4gn4r0k (16459 posts) -

Pc for FPS anyway. I don't really get it.

Killzone isn't on PC. If it was that would be the platform to get it on for sure. I get all my FPS on PC but I couldn't get Resistance or Killzone on it unfortunately.

#23 Edited by lostrib (35895 posts) -

@Rage010101 said:

@FPSfan1985 said:

I've never noticed a difference between p2p and dedicated servers.

You must be console gaming only then

I do 90% of my gaming on PC. BUt when I play games like gears, or COD on console there is no more lag than normal. I think its just a bunch of hyperbole to use in flame wars.

Host migrations/host advantage

#24 Posted by clyde46 (46027 posts) -

I've never noticed a difference between p2p and dedicated servers.

Wut? For reals?

#25 Edited by Wasdie (49753 posts) -

@R4gn4r0k: I believe BF3 uses one (therefor BC2 and BF4 do too), I know Planetside 2 uses it, and they patched it into Red Orchestra 2. That's what I know off of the top of my head.

Edit: I got confused on what I was talking about.

Also Sony made the online pay-to-play because they can get away with it. After how successful XBL was and what a great source of revenue it was for Microsoft, Sony would be crazy to not implement a similar structure, especially when they were in the red for so many years. There is no real justification that can be made about it other than Sony will make more money. Anybody who tries to justify it as a benefit for the consumer is just fooling themselves.

#26 Edited by XBOunity (2981 posts) -

@HaRmLeSS_RaGe: astroGAF you mean. That place has been reeling since the driveclub news lol

#27 Posted by FPSfan1985 (2008 posts) -

@lostrib: I don't play many console shooters, but the ones I do Halo for example the p2p doesn't effect gameplay. Still feels really responsive to me. Regardless of p2p or dedicated serves my ping is always around 50ms.

#28 Edited by R4gn4r0k (16459 posts) -

@Wasdie:

Oh, but that is hit detection. I thought this was talking about players connecting to eachother. Hmm you could have a point.

I know about RO2s hit detection because I've spent a long time discussing it on the forums. The server side hit detection that was present at first caused kills to feel laggy when people had a high ping. So you could shoot someone in your game, but in his game, because of the lagyness the hit got registered in a different way that that you saw.

So, after a lot of feedback they implemented client side hit detection that fixed all the problems. You shoot, your target dies, even if there is lag.

I think BF has server side hit detection. Sometimes it feels responsive and other times it doesn't.

#29 Posted by lostrib (35895 posts) -

@lostrib: I don't play many console shooters, but the ones I do Halo for example the p2p doesn't effect gameplay. Still feels really responsive to me. Regardless of p2p or dedicated serves my ping is always around 50ms.

My main experience with console shooters is CoD, and host migration and host advantage are both issues. Also, sometimes matchmaking picks a shitty host which causes problems for other players. And then of course there's always the possibility of lag switches with P2P

#30 Posted by Zaibach (13444 posts) -

@Wasdie:

@Wasdie said:

It's a hybrid system with some of it still using dedicated servers. I don't know why they even bother telling this to people, it just starts a flame war. People wouldn't be any wiser if they wouldn't say a word about it.

the guys at GG have been waay too honest, and youre right its nourishment for astroturfers like TC

#31 Posted by FPSfan1985 (2008 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@FPSfan1985 said:

@lostrib: I don't play many console shooters, but the ones I do Halo for example the p2p doesn't effect gameplay. Still feels really responsive to me. Regardless of p2p or dedicated serves my ping is always around 50ms.

My main experience with console shooters is CoD, and host migration and host advantage are both issues. Also, sometimes matchmaking picks a shitty host which causes problems for other players. And then of course there's always the possibility of lag switches with P2P

Yea lag switches are a real issue. That shit is bull.

#32 Posted by lostrib (35895 posts) -

@R4gn4r0k said:

@Wasdie:

Oh, but that is hit detection. I thought this was talking about players connecting to eachother. Hmm you could have a point.

I know about RO2s hit detection because I've spent a long time discussing it on the forums. The server side hit detection that was present at first caused kills to feel laggy when people had a high ping. So you could shoot someone in your game, but in his game, because of the lagyness the hit got registered in a different way that that you saw.

So, after a lot of feedback they implemented client side hit detection that fixed all the problems. You shoot, your target dies, even if there is lag.

I think BF has server side hit detection. Sometimes it feels responsive and other times it doesn't.

BF uses clientside

#33 Edited by tormentos (17721 posts) -

@FPSfan1985 said:

I've never noticed a difference between p2p and dedicated servers.

There is for one you are connecting to a server,there is no pauses for host migrations or games dropping because the host dropped,depending on the servers lag can be lower or higher,and you can support a way higher number of players than on P2P.

lemming now act like servers are the greatest thing ever,those same lemmings have 11 years defending P2P vs the Ps2 and the PS3 which had games on servers,in fact the PS2 had more games on servers than the xbox and xbox 360 as well.

P2P is ok if the code is well done,i played Uncharted 3 online and it was great,Halo Reach is another games which has great code,gears has horrible code it was change to servers on gears 3 for that reason,and COD as well has horrible code.

#34 Posted by R4gn4r0k (16459 posts) -

@lostrib:

Well, then I have no clue which one is supposed to be better. Because client side works perfect in RO2. While it seems to cause issues in BF3.

#35 Posted by Stevo_the_gamer (42718 posts) -

I doubt this will be a deal-breaker for Killzone fans considering none of the previous Killzone titles had dedicated servers.

#36 Posted by lostrib (35895 posts) -

@R4gn4r0k said:

@lostrib:

Well, then I have no clue which one is supposed to be better. Because client side works perfect in RO2. While it seems to cause issues in BF3.

it was probably just BF3 having sucky "netcode" because BF4 is supposed to use the same system and it was definitely better

#37 Edited by clyde46 (46027 posts) -

@lostrib: I don't play many console shooters, but the ones I do Halo for example the p2p doesn't effect gameplay. Still feels really responsive to me. Regardless of p2p or dedicated serves my ping is always around 50ms.

Try connecting to a host across the pond. P2P works well if you are close to the host, if not then you're hosed. Connecting to a UK based host, I get a 30MS ping, if I connect to a host in say New York, my ping jumps to over a 100ms.

#38 Edited by Heil68 (43996 posts) -

Sony is pushing the boundaries of play once again by merging technology and innovation.

#39 Edited by tormentos (17721 posts) -

@XBOunity said:

@Wasdie: yep lets just assume psn will be on par with xbl next gen. That crow is cooking in the oven.

You know what the sad part is that the most played game on line now is P2P,and games like Resistance 2 that supported 60 players online and 8 players co-op were ignore by many even that they ran on dedicated servers.

I am not saying P2P is better than servers,i am actually telling you that the majority of the online user base on both consoles did not care,COD is P2P an no game on servers or not beat it.

If your game sucks it doesn't matter if it is P2P or on servers.

Wow that sucks. No wonder Sonygaf have a new Titanfall port begging thread running lmfao

lol...

No one has to beg for that game to come to PS4,once the PS4 start outselling the xbox one you will see how fast it land on PS4.

#40 Posted by Scipio8 (627 posts) -

Hey cows, what does $100 buy you? 300,000 dedicated servers lol

#41 Posted by RR360DD (11802 posts) -

Its clearly not the same as BF3 because I've never got the 'host migration' message there yet I have in KZ3.

All gameplay is hosted by a client in KZ. The only thing their servers are used for is stat tracking and the game browser, which is like the same in 90% of console games.

#42 Edited by lostrib (35895 posts) -

@Scipio8 said:

Hey cows, what does $100 buy you? 300,000 dedicated servers lol

I think you might be a couple million dollars off

#43 Posted by lostrib (35895 posts) -

@RR360DD said:

Its clearly not the same as BF3 because I've never got the 'host migration' message there yet I have in KZ3.

All gameplay is hosted by a client in KZ. The only thing their servers are used for is stat tracking and the game browser, which is like the same in 90% of console games.

That's because BF3 connects to dedicated servers

#44 Edited by clyde46 (46027 posts) -

This is me connecting to a UK host less that 50 miles from me.

And this is me connecting to a host in New York City.

#45 Posted by Wasdie (49753 posts) -

@R4gn4r0k: DICE has confirmed client side hit detection. It's just really weird depending on a lot of factors.

You can still have players connect to each other without one of them hosting the game. That's what it sounds like is going on here. It's not fully P2P where a client acts as a host. It sounds like the host is still the dedicated servers but clients are also connecting to each other.

#46 Posted by HavocV3 (7934 posts) -

@FPSfan1985 said:

I've never noticed a difference between p2p and dedicated servers.

lemming now act like servers are the greatest thing ever,those same lemmings have 11 years defending P2P vs the Ps2 and the PS3 which had games on servers,in fact the PS2 had more games on servers than the xbox and xbox 360 as well.

And cows now act like servers aren't that big of a deal. And now it's OK if Sony holds their MP hostage because they apparently 'deserve' it after a few years of free online.

That's hypocrisy for you.

#47 Posted by R4gn4r0k (16459 posts) -

@Wasdie said:

@R4gn4r0k: DICE has confirmed client side hit detection. It's just really weird depending on a lot of factors.

You can still have players connect to each other without one of them hosting the game. That's what it sounds like is going on here. It's not fully P2P where a client acts as a host. It sounds like the host is still the dedicated servers but clients are also connecting to each other.

Yeah man. You did show me how something being peer to peer is not as straightforward as it sounds. Never knew that client side hit detection is a form of peer to peer.

#48 Posted by XBOunity (2981 posts) -

@HavocV3: you imagine what tormentors would be saying if this news was the other way around? Lol that's the most putrid dc I have seen in awhile

#49 Edited by Wasdie (49753 posts) -

@R4gn4r0k: Well it can be. There are many different ways of doing peer to peer. Usually client side hit detection sends a signal to the server which updates the other clients. You could technically write that to send the signals directly to the server and the other client at the same time. Maybe that is what they are doing. Generally peers don't directly talk to each other and they just connect to one of the other peer's game hosted on their machine. I was wrong and I didn't mean to mislead you there.

I'm not convinced that they are utilizing 100% P2P for this game. They seem to be implementing a hybrid solution that utilizes local client power as well as a dedicated server.

P2P is actually fine until the host changes and it does give the host an unfair advantage. I have no idea.

This is why I say they should just keep their mouths shut. As long as the end result is playable with no major issues then there is nothing to worry about. The end result is all that matters.

#50 Posted by treedoor (7648 posts) -

lol paying for P2P networking