Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

(XB1)DavidRyder 74

Warframe is successful enough to have dedicated servers

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, marelooke said:

Yes, for certain things, as I mentioned (eg. hubs), but I imagine anything with more than 4 players would be a candidate.

How does Dead by daylight play in NZ/Australia though?

Just because one company is lazy with localization of servers doesnt mean the next one will be.

And since DE seems to be on a friendly "ha-ha that was funny" level with GGG I'm sure they can get help to find a good isp for oceanic players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Methanoid said:

totally different types of games.

The costs wont be drastically higher here either way. Just as a 32 player BF server mostly costs the same as a 32 player CoD server. In reality, with your line of thinking, BF would be far more expensive because the maps alone are about 5 times the size of CoD maps, that is without adding vehicle combat into the mix among other things like destructable environments etc. Just as the cost increase between a 32 to a 64 player server is minimal aswell. Not that the 100 player servers of DayZ are expensive either.

edit: Plus, DE wouldnt turn to private server companies anyway, so the costs would be even lower. In some places there would even be state based cost reductions due to job opportunities opening up for the citizens, which increases growth and so on in the region. Lots of that stuff going on in europe, which was one of the reasons why EA took the chance to expand their servers on Ireland in connection to the SWToR release. It is also the reason why Google were interested in a massive server farm on Gotland in sweden a few years back because the costs would be so much lower due to national economical benefits given by the state due to infrastructure expansions. I cant remember how it went with all that since I'm not very interested in what happens with google.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2019-07-25 at 1:07 PM, sleepychewbacca said:

Do you not want content for a long time? This is how you don't get content for a long time. People already went mad when they took time to listen to the community begging for reworks to primary and secondaries. If you can be confident enough to put your name out when they do this, and there's a content drought complaint, then go for it. 

I would VERY MUCH like both dedicated servers and not extremely buggy content (because DE has no QA) for a long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, notNSANE said:

I would VERY MUCH like both dedicated servers and not content for a long time.

We all do. We all do. :( 

Not knocking the idea off. Just however being the party pooper, given how I've seen DE operate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Methanoid said:

to OP, and where exactly would you host these servers, because the costs involved to conveniently cover all regions required would cost a minted fortune, thats why games like this are always hosted by a player.

what? every single f2p mmo and similar has dedicated servers. If hundreds of indie game companies can afford it, plus other thousands of mobile games, DE can absolutely afford it. 

What's more, they should.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if anyone here actualy knows why P2P in this sort of game is better than dedicated server. They might try a better pairing mechanism but honestly I rather have seldom Host migration than spaghetti connection like in Path of Exile.

 

Only thing i would appreciate is when Host migration fails game would create anothere instance of actual mission. We know it is possible because this happens in Plains of Eidolon and Orb Valis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SneakyErvin said:

 

This is a thread I made out of curiosity about servers

About BF server, I have a suspicion that they're using middleweight or heavyweight server because it's very taxing with all of that. Now, about your 512 kbps internet, what was the game you played with that connection? Also, we're talking about EA here, a big publisher so who knows how many people or investors behind them to cover the cost, plus their base game price + DLC + microtransaction (starter pack anyone) and numerous games under their wings (FIFA, Battlefield, Etc) so the scale is way beyond DE with warframe as their game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Il y a 17 heures, Karu-QW a dit :

Sadly the truth.

 

 

 

Also, this is the laughable part about the white knights:

No matter what side of the argument, there are as many people acting as if they know DE's finances, weither or not they guess right, it's a dead argument to attack one side with, since it invalidates just as much the other side.

(But, as an accountant myself, I can tell you, it would not be limited to the sole servers's rental price. As long term agreement between large business means a lot of work, time and money for everything to be setup. But I'll leave that at that, since I don't have all the numbers)

But yeah, some fine cherry picking right ? Choose the one argument used by both side, but ignore all the other anti-server arguments like :

Would screw over many many people far from usual server locations.

Would not do anything if you have potato internet to begin with.

Transition would be long and glitchy most likely.

They would need to invest time and money into it, so content would slow down dramatically. And since people are already crying content drought 2 hours after an update, you can only guess the negative impact.

And also, real efficient to brand anyone that disagrees with you as "white knight". Surely, all the people calling out what they think would damage the game, they're nothing but senseless fanboys uh ?

I suppose I can just call "brainless sheeps" anyone that disagrees with me then ? I would not have to think about what they're saying anymore, pretty chill indeed !


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 844448 said:

This is a thread I made out of curiosity about servers

About BF server, I have a suspicion that they're using middleweight or heavyweight server because it's very taxing with all of that. Now, about your 512 kbps internet, what was the game you played with that connection? Also, we're talking about EA here, a big publisher so who knows how many people or investors behind them to cover the cost, plus their base game price + DLC + microtransaction (starter pack anyone) and numerous games under their wings (FIFA, Battlefield, Etc) so the scale is way beyond DE with warframe as their game

Back then I played anything from Delta Force (cant remember which one of them), C&C Renegade, Tribes (2?), Jedi Knight, DaoC, SWG, BF1942, Medal of Honor Allied Assault, Ghost Recon and a bunch of other games with private or corporately owned dedicated servers. Heck I played C&C aswell as DaoC, BF, Tribes 2 and Ghost Recon on US servers with my brother and it was perfectly fine. All you hade to compensate for was the 150ish ms. But that was it, you never had to worry about the twitching mobs or players that you experience with PtP setups since the server kept better track of everything. And that was so many years ago now.

Also what you are checking are only server distributors for private persons/clans. The prices there wont reflect how a company rents/owns server space because it comes at a much greater scale and a completely different structure. Those things are what you see clans using for games like BF and CoD. They are also much more expensive because there are several instances that needs to get payed in order to keep them running. You have the independant ISP that provides the server distributor with the bandwidth, then you have the distributor and their tech personal along with the hardware costs and so on.

There are certain ISP companies that provide servers directly to clans and people, those are often far cheaper. When Telia or Bredbandsbolaget did it in sweden the cost was roughly comparable to 40-50USD per month, that means around 600USD per year. It all depends which country you end up in and how advanced their fiber infrastructure is.

And when it comes to EA, I hope you are refering to my SWToR example and not BF, because 99% (maybe even 100% nowdays) are player hosted servers. Anyways, regarding SWToR, it wasnt about renting servers for them, it was about building a completely new datacenter on Ireland where parts would be used for SWToR and the rest would be the property of Ireland. Those big companies own everything, just like Blizzard has their own massive datacenters and "hands out" server capacity to others, like Bungie for instance and now also different companies that develop CoD titles.

But no one here is saying DE should build datacenters, people are saying they should rent space at already exsisting datacenters across the world, much like how other games do it, like GGG with PoE for instance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fallen77 said:

No matter what side of the argument, there are as many people acting as if they know DE's finances, weither or not they guess right, it's a dead argument to attack one side with, since it invalidates just as much the other side.

Actually we know DEs finances because Leyou have released annual reports that shows a sharp increase in revenue and profit year by year. It is even mentioned earlier in this thread (I think).

They had near $150mil straight profit in 2018, which was a massive increase from 2017. And that is profit i.e money that has no actual place to go except on the stockpile of the pure profit from the previous year and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Il y a 14 heures, SneakyErvin a dit :

Actually we know DEs finances because Leyou have released annual reports that shows a sharp increase in revenue and profit year by year. It is even mentioned earlier in this thread (I think).

They had near $150mil straight profit in 2018, which was a massive increase from 2017. And that is profit i.e money that has no actual place to go except on the stockpile of the pure profit from the previous year and so on.

I mean, those numbers may not reflect the entire situation. There are many variables at hand beside the direct profit vs estimated cost.

Big business tend to rely on investors to stay up float, and those would more than likely not vote for dedicated servers. As it would diminush their return on investment long term, they don't care about player quality of life, unless it brings more revenue, wich I doubt would be the case here. (Frenchy here, don't know the exact english vocabulary for that) And I couldn't be bothered to check if DE is on the stock market, but if it's the case, that weighs even more in the balance.

So yeah, big companies are forced to thrive for the most profit, weither they want it or not. So unless slightly more stable connection for half the playerbase brings more money than before, inspite of the huge server cost, I doubt we'll ever see it happen.

But again, you need a bunch ton of infos to make an educated guess on those things.Nothinh you can get by googling it People need masters and doctoras for companies to trust them for such estimation.

Ultimately, I cant say anything for sure, I don't have the numbers. But if I was to stand on the different estimations on this thread, I'd say it looks grim for dedicated servers.

Edit : it's not as simple as "pilling up profit". Those investors I mentionned, they generally drain most of the profit for themselves. And if profit stops, they stop funding the company. Life is never that simple, I'm sure they'd love to invest those millions into new employees for qol, but as a huge majority of companies, they are bound to feed the investors first. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Fallen77 said:

I mean, those numbers may not reflect the entire situation. There are many variables at hand beside the direct profit vs estimated cost.

Big business tend to rely on investors to stay up float, and those would more than likely not vote for dedicated servers. As it would diminush their return on investment long term, they don't care about player quality of life, unless it brings more revenue, wich I doubt would be the case here. (Frenchy here, don't know the exact english vocabulary for that) And I couldn't be bothered to check if DE is on the stock market, but if it's the case, that weighs even more in the balance.

So yeah, big companies are forced to thrive for the most profit, weither they want it or not. So unless slightly more stable connection for half the playerbase brings more money than before, inspite of the huge server cost, I doubt we'll ever see it happen.

But again, you need a bunch ton of infos to make an educated guess on those things.Nothinh you can get by googling it People need masters and doctoras for companies to trust them for such estimation.

Ultimately, I cant say anything for sure, I don't have the numbers. But if I was to stand on the different estimations on this thread, I'd say it looks grim for dedicated servers.

Edit : it's not as simple as "pilling up profit". Those investors I mentionned, they generally drain most of the profit for themselves. And if profit stops, they stop funding the company. Life is never that simple, I'm sure they'd love to invest those millions into new employees for qol, but as a huge majority of companies, they are bound to feed the investors first. 

The profit should always indicate the overflow. Revenue is the sum you are thinking of that is not based on costs, profit is the sum after costs, project investments and the cut to the parent company are added up for the year.

Leyou surely takes a yearly cut, but seeing as how WF is their best selling and most successful product I doubt they take alot since it would be shooting themselves in the foot. They are also just a holding company, so it is doubtful how much they are involved at all. Since there is yet any actual contracts we can view besides the sale numbers when DE got bought. We dont know the actual contract how it effects DE/WF. And as been pointed out before. Leyou owns DE, but WF (the money maker) is still the IP of someone somewhere else that likely hasnt been sold.

I'm also not sure why you say it would only effect half the playerbase. It will improve connection for everyone and solve most issues we have now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Each time server pricing arguments are presented I just recall the time I was playing Ragnarok Online around 2004 with private "unofficial" dedicated servers hosting hundreds of thousands of players at once (Eternity RO in particular) even though the service was offered for free.... And I had no connectivity or latency issues even though I live in the Dominican Republic and their servers were in Europe. 

So what gives? The only options left are that the people hosting RO got servers from 2560 back in 2004, or they were millionaires hosting the game out of the kindness of their hearts for free (Because the official RO server was a monthly subscription back then) or the implementation is being made needlessly complicated or expensive when discussed here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Jarriaga said:

Each time server pricing arguments are presented I just recall the time I was playing Ragnarok Online around 2004 with private "unofficial" dedicated servers hosting hundreds of thousands of players at once (Eternity RO in particular) even though the service was offered for free.... And I had no connectivity or latency issues even though I live in the Dominican Republic and their servers were in Europe. 

Either those people got servers from 2560 back in 2004, or the costs don't add-up, or the implementation is being made needlessly complicated or expensive when discussed. 

Make correct assumptions and not the ones that fit your viewpoint and sometimes things become a bit more clear.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Chappie1975 said:

Make correct assumptions and not the ones that fit your viewpoint and sometimes things become a bit more clear.  

I can only assume based on my own experience, regardless of my interests.

I experienced Ragnarok Online in 2004 for free thanks to the super low rate (Slow XP progression) private dedicated server EternityRO. I did not experience latency or connectivity issues despite their servers being in a different continent. There were usually around 200K players at once at any given moment, because the game allowed you to see the number of connected players in-chat.

How about you kindly try to explain that phenomenon on your end instead of just shutting it down as "incorrect assumptions" because they do not fit your own viewpoint? What would be the correct assumptions there? Please educate me; this is a two way street after all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Il y a 3 heures, SneakyErvin a dit :

The profit should always indicate the overflow. Revenue is the sum you are thinking of that is not based on costs, profit is the sum after costs, project investments and the cut to the parent company are added up for the year.

Leyou surely takes a yearly cut, but seeing as how WF is their best selling and most successful product I doubt they take alot since it would be shooting themselves in the foot. They are also just a holding company, so it is doubtful how much they are involved at all. Since there is yet any actual contracts we can view besides the sale numbers when DE got bought. We dont know the actual contract how it effects DE/WF. And as been pointed out before. Leyou owns DE, but WF (the money maker) is still the IP of someone somewhere else that likely hasnt been sold.

I'm also not sure why you say it would only effect half the playerbase. It will improve connection for everyone and solve most issues we have now.

Oh no trust me (or not, I'm an internet random after all, I'll give you that, but still), I'm an accountant, it's my job. 

At first, the gross profit people are talking about is not usable entirely, that would be closer to what I was trying to say. Yes, the number bellow profit should take about all costs into consideration, but it is heavily split afterward. It is that profit that pays the parent companies, no way around this one.

Now, it's a pretty image you have in your mind, but it's very far from reality. Leyou won't take too much ? They will cherish DE ? Not go too hard on them ? Nonononono... It's not how it works. Investor goes to DE : "here's a S#&$ ton of money, you're my slave now, make a lot of grofit or you're out". It's always like this. Think whatever you want, I prepare the payments for my investors, they take as much as possible.

And ofc they take a bunch, how long you expect warframes to last ? 5 years ? 6 ? They have to generate more money than what they bought DE for in that time or it's just wasted. So unless new servers bring twice as much players as POE did, it won't even be considered.

And from what I could see (sneackily researched while at work, didn't have the time to double check everything), out of the 140 millions of profit in 2018, the parent companies took around 85 millions for themselves. And that's not DE's profit, but the all group's profit, which means DE would get even less.

And ofc leyou has their hands in DE's decision, they own the thing, any action is impacting them first. That's always how it has worked, you sell your company to get big ducats, but you loose all control over it. 

And ofc leyou has control over WF, if it's DE's property, it's Leyou's property, simple as that. Why would they buy something if they don't own it in the end ?

 

And finally, if you did your homework, you'd know dservers are not the magic solution to everything, as that is easily researchable. The quality of the connection is based on distance to and quality of the hosting server. 

Anyone that already has a good connection won't see a difference, it can even be worst for them if the server is placed far enough from them.

Anyone with a S#&$ty connection won't see a difference either, since they can't connect properly to any server.

So only players with a not too bad connection, and at the right geographical place, will see a difference.

The one thing I can give you would be the better stability of servers. So if the server is placed a bit too far from me (for example), I'll reliably get the same worst connection than before.

That's why only half the playerbase would see a difference.

Even more, a huge majority of network problems are not coming from p2p, it's coming from the individual's potato computer (not the one hosting).

I've played TF2 for years on a potato computer with potato internet, been to all available servers, it was always as laggy. Played WF for a year on the same potato computer, had all the problems in the world. Changed computer, got the fiber, I rarely host, but almost never have any problem, host migrations always work, doors open.

But I guess people (not aimed at you, just in general) would rather point the finger at someone else rather than working on their own issues. And don't get me the "not everyone can afford it", I worked overtime at subway for this computer, anyone not from a third world country can do it, just get to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Il y a 3 heures, Jarriaga a dit :

I can only assume based on my own experience, regardless of my interests.

I experienced Ragnarok Online in 2004 for free thanks to the super low rate (Slow XP progression) private dedicated server EternityRO. I did not experience latency or connectivity issues despite their servers being in a different continent. There were usually around 200K players at once at any given moment, because the game allowed you to see the number of connected players in-chat.

How about you kindly try to explain that phenomenon on your end instead of just shutting it down as "incorrect assumptions" because they do not fit your own viewpoint? What would be the correct assumptions there? Please educate me; this is a two way street after all. 

Oh, you're talking about this simplistic 2d game ? That game that puts you in instances, and not 200k players at once ?

Oh yeah, great comparing ground. I mean, this bycicle wheel works fine, but why can't it work with a monster truck ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to have both option in case servers were having trouble you could go back to hosting sessions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Fallen77 said:

Oh, you're talking about this simplistic 2d game ? That game that puts you in instances, and not 200k players at once ?

Oh yeah, great comparing ground. I mean, this bycicle wheel works fine, but why can't it work with a monster truck ? 

Hgr5hsi.jpg

qmyNUd5.jpg

GYbXK79.jpg

That's -if- you decide to join an instance so you can initiate a specific activity or do a dungeon at your own pace without being affected by what other players on the same dungeon were doing. In other words, exactly why you doing an Eidolon hunt does not affect other players outside your squad. Otherwise you see all other players who are on the same map as you are killing the same monsters that you are, and seeing them whoop each other if they decide to do PvP in the middle of PvE. Megabosses were a thing as well because all 200K players could gang up on them and still need days to be killed. It was impossible to see yourself or distinguish anything past 1000 players but it was a common thing. 

And that was in 2004.

Being 2D is not a jail-free card for you to ignore the number of players in the thousands at once all with their own classes, equipment, stats, and character designs as well as server technology and computer specs and Internet speeds of 2004. Even if you decide to consider instances, a standard 4 people Warframe squad would behave the same way as an instance in function (Minus the cooldown so you don't farm bosses over and over) and you still have many more connections per instance in RO (12) than WF (4) that all need to be synchronized in enemy placement and movement, player placement and movement, HP and MP values, shared XP, ability cast times and effects, loot drops and damage calculations and resistances for both players and enemies. 

If all of that could be handled in an implementation that was offered to 200,000 people in 2004 and you had the option to either do 12 player instances (Squads) or just throw them all at once like WF's relays, then I am having a hard time accepting that somehow it would be more difficult or expensive on a game that limits you to 4 player instances or squads in 2019 with hardware that is on average 20 times more powerful.

And that was only that specific dedicated server. There were many other competitive dedicated servers being offered all with their own features to the point there were pages dedicated to comparing and ranking free RO dedicated servers. Many of them were vastly more popular and populated than EternityRO. Where was the money coming from to sustain such a competition? 

Something doesn't add up. Either the hosts of the Eternity RO private dedicated servers were millionaires that could afford servers in 2004 for 200k players while allowing me a stable connection even thought I was playing at 512kb broadband from a 3rd world country in a different continent (Dominican Republic), or server pricing and implementation is being grossly inflated here. 

Something just doesn't add up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, (XB1)Huggs93 said:

I would like to have both option in case servers were having trouble you could go back to hosting sessions

Ideally, and as I proposed earlier, the dedicated server would be only for public matches via a connection type toggle just as you select public, solo, or friends only. You could still use the current P2P system simply by inviting another player, in which at that moment you become the host. This would also still allow you to trade and play with other players outside the dedicated server if you so decide.

But even that is being shut down here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Jarriaga said:

Something just doesn't add up. 

Your understanding of networking and the data (size and latency) that is being moved is what does not add up.    I will ask this simple question...If that game, in 2004, had such an insanely good and cost effective networking model...why isn't it the defacto standard today for everything?   Are you trying to tell me that every company out they knowingly is sabotaging a competitive advantage because of irrational reasons?   Need to pull out that wonka picture right about now.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Chappie1975 said:

Your understanding of networking and the data (size and latency) that is being moved is what does not add up.    I will ask this simple question...If that game, in 2004, had such an insanely good and cost effective networking model...why isn't it the defacto standard today for everything?   Are you trying to tell me that every company out they knowingly is sabotaging a competitive advantage because of irrational reasons?   Need to pull out that wonka picture right about now.  

Size and latency, performance and specs and internet services and average connection speeds from 2004 are being measured against 2019 and somehow some companies are able to do it, and others are unable to. How many games (Both recent and old) have been provided as examples? Why are none of them accepted as valid examples? You may question my understanding of networking and data being moved, but that just sidesteps the existence of said games with no valid explanation as to why they are somehow years ahead of WF in network infrastructure and netcode out of the gate while offering dedicated servers.

I don't think the problem is related to companies sabotaging each other. I think the problem is more related to players simply not wanting for DE to make ANY investment in networking at all because those are resources that would be competing with the development of content and would rather justify why white is black than admitting so while negating the existence of examples that contradict the notion that it can't be done due to extreme costs, because no example is good-enough or close enough because it's not an exact 1:1 tooth and nail comparison, which is an impossible bar to measure something against and exposes how nothing will be a good example of how it can be done to those players justifying why it shouldn't be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jarriaga said:

Size and latency, performance and specs and internet services and average connection speeds from 2004 are being measured against 2019 and somehow some companies are able to do it, and others are unable to. How many games (Both recent and old) have been provided as examples? Why are none of them accepted as valid examples? You may question my understanding of networking and data being moved, but that just sidesteps the existence of said games with no valid explanation as to why they are somehow years ahead of WF in network infrastructure and netcode out of the gate while offering dedicated servers.

I don't think the problem is related to companies sabotaging each other. I think the problem is more related to players simply not wanting for DE to make ANY investment in networking at all because those are resources that would be competing with the development of content and would rather justify why white is black than admitting so and negating the existence of examples that contradict the notion that it can't be done due to extreme costs.

You completely side stepped my point because you don't have an answer.  If that protocol in 2004 was so amazing (speed and cost)....why isn't i the defacto standard today?  Again...we have faster computers and connections and there are probably better protocols.   Explain why DE and every other developer looking to minimize overall networking (this include staff) costs just doesn't use that.   Until you can explain that your whole argument is biased towards the answer you want with the core tenant of "greed" as your argument.   Again..what doesn't add up is your knowledge of networking and data (size and latency).

I will not call you an idiot...but I will call you willfully ignorant.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Jarriaga said:

Ideally, and as I proposed earlier, the dedicated server would be only for public matches via a connection type toggle just as you select public, solo, or friends only. You could still use the current P2P system simply by inviting another player, in which at that moment you become the host. This would also still allow you to trade and play with other players outside the dedicated server if you so decide.

But even that is being shut down here.

Why is it being shut down? I work in networking and security and that’s perfectly viable I said what I said based on legacy systems in case the servers were ever being repaired or shut down or being repaired for some reason 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Chappie1975 said:

You completely side stepped my point because you don't have an answer.  If that protocol in 2004 was so amazing (speed and cost)....why isn't i the defacto standard today?  Again...we have faster computers and connections and there are probably better protocols.   Explain why.   Until you can explain that your whole argument is biased towards the answer you want with the core tenant of "greed" as your argument.   Again..what doesn't add up is your knowledge of networking and data (size and latency).

I will not call you an idiot...but I will call you willfully ignorant.  

I’d have to agree he apparently also doesn’t know what the player base wants or hasn’t watched the streams where it has been asked several times if there will ever be dedicated servers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...