Rainbow Six Siege is currently experiencing similar network issues, so I don't think it's inherent to P2P. Not sure if it's a large influx of players or something else though.
-
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.
It's 2017. So why the hell does For Honor not have dedicated servers?
- Thread starter Saucycarpdog
- Start date
Rainbow Six Siege is currently experiencing similar network issues, so I don't think it's inherent to P2P. Not sure if it's a large influx of players or something else though.
The worst part is the guy who wrote the article doesn't even know what a Beta test is either. This is all thanks to these big shots dropping buzz words like "Closed Beta" and muddying the waters for other reviews and uninformed consumers.
"The debate about For Honor's networking has raged ever since the game went into beta."
Closed Beta - January 26 until January 29. That's still not enough time. 2 weeks before launch? Hilarious.
Anyways, to actually reply to the thread's question - It's because P2P is the cheapest alternative, like Ubisoft, and they're just churning out another shit-tier multiplayer game that they'll forget about once microtransaction numbers drop in a year.
……forgetit
Member
Money?
SpiceMelange
Member
I'm pretty sure the disconnect issue (the only issue in that article that simply isn't just netcode) isn't related to scalability, as in a problem creeping up from the high number of people playing. Seems like a bad handling of game state synchronization, with is much harder to do in the network model FH implemented.
qa_engineer
Member
Because Ubi knows how to fuck up a cup of coffee. You have this pretty awesome game then you shit the bed by using P2P.
Could be.
Regardless of what it is, it's a huge red spot for Ubisoft now. R6:S which is supposed to be "ESports ready" and now FH releasing like this.
Considering they have a roadmap for a year+ to come i doubt it. Rainbow six does really well and it uses the same season pass model.
Rainbow Six has a history. For Honor is a new IP that launched pretty awfully so far and doesn't have much going for it in terms of longetivity. If they posted a roadmap then that is what they'll release and nothing more, because they can't afford to not fulfill those promises at this point. But anything more than that is ... well, I'm sure it'll get stale a lot sooner than they're hoping.
What says it launched awfully? There are over 100k+ concurrent players on each platform. Are you saying it launched horribly because the minority leave negative reviews? Or is it that over exaggerated p2p video being tossed around? The reviews are also pretty good for a brand new IP. Considering they announced 6 new heroes, new maps, new armors, ranked/tournament mode all for this year.. i doubt it'll become stale anytime soon for the people who actually play the game instead of complaining all day =)
All that content is just more of the same though, but yeah I get what you're saying. Fair enough. I realize that angry customers shout louder than satisfied ones, but specifically, I was talking about connection issues in a MP game day 1, coupled with a P2P model that is easily abuse-able and thus can't actually be competitive in any tangible way.
Yea there are problems with the p2p model.. no doubt about that.. im sure they'll address it for when ranked is announced or even sooner.. everything from here on out can only get better from here.. i dont think people realize that.
For the record today, Current Steam Players 27,948, Concurrent Steam Players, 38,367. They aren't the best numbers but are actually quite high for what I would've guessed. We'll see where they stand in a week.
Thats steam alone, not incl uplay. Yesterdays peak was about 90k in the afternoon. Right now theres 50k ish online (most people are at work)
So they should just call it by more consumer friendly name, free trial / free demo? Rather than hiding it as beta that is done to benefit Ubisoft in stress testing and such? What is so awful in calling it open beta? Why get hung up on it, it benefits the consumer as you said yourself. But in all honesty, they did test the connections in the open "beta" and did changes based on that. It's still not good enough though. But please try to hide your obvious bias when talking about the game. You just make yourself look like a fool constantly calling their games terrible and garbage. Silly child. And what does it matter that discs were already shipped. They don't need the discs back to make changes
How do you think this works?InsaneTiger
Member
Shhhhhh, you can't have that opinion. Only Strakt's opinion is the correct opinion. Everyone just sucks at the game except him. Your concerns are invalid. /s
If you actually read some of my responses you'll see I acknowledge disconnect problems. What a naive post.
So they should just call it by more consumer friendly name, free trial / free demo? Rather than hiding it as beta that is done to benefit Ubisoft in stress testing and such? What is so awful in calling it open beta? Why get hung up on it, it benefits the consumer as you said yourself. But in all honesty, they did test the connections in the open "beta" and did changes based on that. It's still not perfect though. But please try to hide your obvious bias when talking about the game. You just make yourself look like a fool constantly calling their games terrible and garbage. Silly child. And what does it matter that discs were already shipped. They don't need the discs back to make changes
There have been multiple games that have Network/Stress Tests exactly as you said, and label them as such. Ubisoft is just using a buzzword to generate hype. It's a straight lie to consumers and reviewers to call it a Beta, so yeah I would rather they're Honorable. It's a bad practice because a) that's not what a Beta is b) implies results from these tests would be used for something for release. Like I said earlier, maybe they caught a few smaller things but these should've been done and fixed months ago. There are still PLENTY of connectivity issues out there right now, post-release.
Not shipping with this stuff on disc isn't a problem for end consumers, it's a visibility problem. They don't care to fix it pre release cause people will buy it nonetheless. These bugs should've been fixed BEFORE launching a multiplayer game. Its just careless.
Sure I can agree with most of that. Unfortunately this industry doesn't work that way, that online experiences are flawless on launch. I wish it did and I wish all developers/publishers would improve on that. It's not strictly an Ubisoft issue afterall. But yeah, I can see how "this is beta" can be used to brush the problems under the carpet. Just few days before the launch it would be fair to call it "free trial" or such since it pretty much represents the launch game already.
C.Olimar788
Member
Gotta pocket that sweet sweet online subscription fee money without actually bothering to give consumers an experience that would justify the fee.
Cha-ching, yo.
Cha-ching, yo.
What subscription money are you talking about? Ubi has somekind of sub service?
C.Olimar788
Member
XBL Gold and PS+. Are those subscription service not provided to allow for online developers to do things like dedicated servers? If not, where is that money going? Into the void?
Into MS/Sony's pockets?
SpiceMelange
Member
Microsoft offers azure servers. Don't think Sony offers anything.
Yes the spoiled part I think. Though pubs/devs can get compensation for those "free" games that come with the service.
ethomaz
Banned
Let't clear something here.
MS provide Azure servers for development.. after that you need to pay the subscription to use them. The servers are not free and not paid by Live subscriptions... devs or publishers needs to pay to use them.
Most publishers didn't use Azure servers because it is cheaper to use their in house server cluster.
Similar threads
- Poll