Annihilator
Member
AndyD said:
He has over 200 posts and been here longer than 60 days so he should be a member unless he lost his privilages.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Would you pay( annual fee) for dedicated servers on PSN?
- Thread starter beast786
- Start date
He has over 200 posts and been here longer than 60 days so he should be a member unless he lost his privilages.
Zombie James
Banned
Nope.
brain_stew
Member
jedimike said:
Well if you can find me a P2P game where I'll consistantly get a sub 50ms ping (like I do in damn near every PC multiplayer title with dedicated servers) then you may have a point.
Nope. But when I see games like LittleBigPlanet being fucking P2P, its sad. I would pay some bucks for that game to become server based that's for sure.
But then again, I am not much of an online multiplayer gamer and sure don't want to pay to play online. (I also never play MMOs)
.
But then again, I am not much of an online multiplayer gamer and sure don't want to pay to play online. (I also never play MMOs)
.
VibratingDonkey
Member
No thank you. For the same reasons as everyone else.
Annihilator
Member
rayner said:
That could be. They need to update FAQ's when they do that stuff then.
Apparently not, everyone acts like online gaming is a privilege, it's not, someone has to pay for it. All those servers people have been playing on in PC gaming for like 15 years were payed for by their respective communities that were willing to pay to have the best online gaming experience possible. Other people use those servers, and now feel entitled to have them for free, when there is no model in place to set up (or pay for) your own servers for console games. The OP suggests such a model, and these responses miss the point.Mindlog said:
I would personally like the choice to pay for dedicated servers for the games I really like to play. I think it is great that some companies front the costs and offer dedicated servers for their games at no extra cost, but for less successful games I would like to have the choice to support it myself.
I think Section 8 allowed you to use your PC as a server for your console game, I don't know how well that worked, but I think that feature should be implemented for all online titles that have medium to high player counts.
If KZ2 does in fact have dedi's (which I'm 99% sure it doesn't), then it has the worlds longest frame buffer lag. That little 1.5 seconds it takes from when you get a kill to when you hear that beep killed the MP for me.
Err, maybe the KZ2 MP kill beeps are just weighted better than other FPS games.
HL2 and COD kill beeps feel waaaay too light for my tastes.
Err, maybe the KZ2 MP kill beeps are just weighted better than other FPS games.
HL2 and COD kill beeps feel waaaay too light for my tastes. a google search of my username will confirm that I'm indeed an ardent Sony fanboy, but I can't defend the KZ2 lag beep. just can't do it.
yurinka
Member
No. It works really well when both players have good connections and the game isn't buggy. I can't see a problem with the servers, I wouldn't pay.beast786 said:Would you pay Annual PSN Fee for Dedicated servers for online gaming?
Since Warhawk, none of the big titles had dedicated servers( could be wrong) including KZ2.
Would you be willing to pay extra for dedicated servers on PSN?
Personally, yes yes yes yes yes. There are plenty of times when the lag makes the game unplayable. Hence to vastly improve my online experience for me it would be worth the price tag.
I love PSN because works really well, and I'm even more happy with it because it's free.
Hydrargyrus
Member
I would never pay for online gaming.
If the PSN becomes a payment service I'll only play the single campaign mode...
If the PSN becomes a payment service I'll only play the single campaign mode...
Unknown One
Member
No but I will pay 10 more dollars on top of the game for dedicated servers.
DangerousDave
Member
Nope
notworksafe
Member
Hell no.
Game2Death
Banned
jedimike said:
Because there is no lag online?
Or because no one plays?
gregor7777
Banned
Melfice7 said:
And that's it. And even then it's basically just moving the hosting away from the player and on to another box.
PSN vs Live? Who gives a shit. The majority of all games on either network are running P2P with little to no customization in game types, so in the grand scheme of things I care little for the $3 p/month or whatever I was paying for Live Gold.
It's a pointless discussion. As this thread illustrates, P2P is perfectly fine for the majority of console gamers, so you'll going to continue to see devs moving farther and farther away from the dedicated server model.
Why pay to host servers when people are happy with 100+ pings and no customization? Most console gamers have no idea why the PC types like dedicated servers so much. Why it's a part of the PC gaming culture.
If companies can get away with feeding you a $2 bag of shit, you bet you ass they'll continue to do so while they look for a $1 bag of shit.
bigdaddygamebot
Member
Returners said:
Keep banging your drum. Maybe someone will listen...eventually.
As for me; No.
Dedicated servers for PC games aren't free. Someone is paying for it. "I'm not paying for features I get free on the PC!" means you'll let someone else pay for you.
And I probably wouldn't pay for just dedicated servers for every game, but it would be smart as hell if Sony relaunched PSN with more robust features and started charging. PSN+ or something. People think if you want online gaming on a console, you get an Xbox. Sony would be smart to try to challenge that perception. It's pretty much the only thing Microsoft has got on them, and it's a big one.
I would definitely pay for a more robust PSN.
And I probably wouldn't pay for just dedicated servers for every game, but it would be smart as hell if Sony relaunched PSN with more robust features and started charging. PSN+ or something. People think if you want online gaming on a console, you get an Xbox. Sony would be smart to try to challenge that perception. It's pretty much the only thing Microsoft has got on them, and it's a big one.
I would definitely pay for a more robust PSN.
Annihilator
Member
http://www.gamersdigest.net/761/killzone-2-developer-qa-part-2/
This article with Seb says there's dedicated servers for KZ2 not P2P....
This article with Seb says there's dedicated servers for KZ2 not P2P....
ChackanKun
Member
Annihilator
Member
sangreal said:
So what does he mean by: Are the servers dedicated or p2p and he answers dedicated?
Dash Kappei
Not actually that important
DR2K said:
:lol :lol
Annihilator said:
They answered this on twitter:
http://twitter.com/KillzoneDotCom/status/1934276652
http://twitter.com/KillzoneDotCom/status/1936633077
I'm torn on that. I have a great connection, and if others did as well, and there was some quality coding done then lag may not be as large of a problem.
I do enjoy Warhawk's system though. It should be implemented across the board for all first-party titles. I like selecting my room, and not having MM pick what it thinks I'd like.
Piss poor net code ruins the fuck out of games for me along with people and their shit connections. MW2 is a great example of this. Lag is present nearly ALL the time despite how you "might" not notice it, but it's there. Then you have the times where it just goes to shit totally. Then you have the MM flaws and busted party system to boot. Then I played MAG and even in Beta form, it was vastly superior to basically all other shooters out there, and it has SO much more going on in the game. I assume it's going to be $60, and that's fine with me. It's how an online only game should run. I'm happy with solid code/servers to say who cares about SP with it.
Damn... I really want to see what Zipper would be able to do now with SOCOM as I'm impressed to hell how MAG turned out. Looking at Confrontation now (which is finally running good) and playing MAG, it's painful having an idea what could have been. Hopefully Zipper is hard at work on a proper SOCOM as we speak since they are a rather large company iirc.
I do enjoy Warhawk's system though. It should be implemented across the board for all first-party titles. I like selecting my room, and not having MM pick what it thinks I'd like.
Piss poor net code ruins the fuck out of games for me along with people and their shit connections. MW2 is a great example of this. Lag is present nearly ALL the time despite how you "might" not notice it, but it's there. Then you have the times where it just goes to shit totally. Then you have the MM flaws and busted party system to boot. Then I played MAG and even in Beta form, it was vastly superior to basically all other shooters out there, and it has SO much more going on in the game. I assume it's going to be $60, and that's fine with me. It's how an online only game should run. I'm happy with solid code/servers to say who cares about SP with it.
Damn... I really want to see what Zipper would be able to do now with SOCOM as I'm impressed to hell how MAG turned out. Looking at Confrontation now (which is finally running good) and playing MAG, it's painful having an idea what could have been. Hopefully Zipper is hard at work on a proper SOCOM as we speak since they are a rather large company iirc.
Similar threads
- Poll