I would pay/subscribe montly for dedicated servers.

[R1exus]

I know many may like the f2p option, BUT i'd be willing to pay monthly service just for dedicated servers.

Host migration every 3rd or 4th game mode, gets old. 

As successful as Warframe is, and the recent findings on the pseudo p2p system leaking information would we ever see dedicated hosting? ILL PAY
 

[(PSN)Madurai-Prime]

3 to 4 host migrations with no context? 

There's probably details you're leaving out.

[Jarriaga]

So would I, and I proposed so 5 years ago:
 

 

[R1exus]

2 minutes ago, Jarriaga said:

So would I, and I proposed so 5 years ago:
 

 

And your not the first, and i agree soo much. 

iOS will bring a SLEW of new players, how many of those players will dog warframe in the reviews saying "laggers" and "host migration" tarnishing our beloved game.

it's time DE, It's time.

[Tesla_Reloaded]

Are you willing to pay for something like this?

Or for that?

Those games are using dedicated servers. Wouldn't it be so wonderful to see the same thing in Warframe, right?

[(XBOX)zThulsaDoomz]

Seeing as how many players enjoy this game because it's both free and fun, this is a bad idea.

I'd like dedis just as much as the next person,  but charging for that after 10+ years is a surefire way to tank your player count as well as your revenue stream. 

Going to be a hard no from me on a subscription model 

[trst]

Ah yes the chance at getting a reduced number of migrations at the cost of money, server down time, and worse ping.

Gosh I just can't fathom why DE hasn't made this a thing already.

[(PSN)robotwars7]

37 minutes ago, Tesla_Reloaded said:

Those games are using dedicated servers.

in Helldivers 2's defense, the devs only planned for like 250k people at most, they had no idea that just about everybody who plays the big AAA shooters would want a look in too... the game is pulling in more people than GTA 5.. that's absolutely ludicrous and nothing like this has happened in years. I'm not saying it excuses crap coding, because it doesn't and they screwed up big time in a bunch of other areas, and we're all paying for it, and people are absolutely justified in being annoyed about the game not always working (it annoys me too, because I love HD2).. but I don't think it's a fair comparison in this case, even though the game has dedicated servers it's also currently a victim of exceptional circumstances (namely it's own success).

1 hour ago, R1exus said:

ILL PAY

YOU might, but not me. not unless other bonuses like additional plat/cosmetics and other items are included in this subscription fee, and even then I'd have to really think about it. this move would likely cause the game to lose more players than it would actually benefit.

either way, DE want the game to run on anything, so it's styaing P2P. I agree host migrations suck when they happen, but that's just a reality we all have to live with. 

[CrownOfShadows]

I feel like we just got done with another post on the same topic....

[Numerounius]

What are you doing that is causing a host migration everything third game? It isn't that often for me and even in the cases where it is that often, the cases of migration don't get old at least compared to constantly loading, Players not knowing how to continue etc.

[UnstarPrime]

As other incredibly recent threads have pointed out, these issues don't require servers to solve and might not even be solved by the introduction of servers.

[Hexerin]

54 minutes ago, trst said:

Ah yes the chance at getting a reduced number of migrations at the cost of money, server down time, and worse ping.

Gosh I just can't fathom why DE hasn't made this a thing already.

Dedicated servers would mean zero host migrations, as the dedicated server is the host while the four players are all clients.

Maybe take a microsecond to think about what you're saying before you post.

[Rakosta_Kai]

41 minutes ago, CrownOfShadows said:

I feel like we just got done with another post on the same topic....

We always "just got done with another post on the same topic".

The topic of server hosting (much like aoe, weapon balance, rivens, player behavior, frame parity, stat squishing, and must slot mods) is evergreen.

Someone is always going to post about it and it's done with such regularity it oughta be a bingo card.   

[Voltage]

18 minutes ago, Hexerin said:

Dedicated servers would mean zero host migrations, as the dedicated server is the host while the four players are all clients.

Maybe take a microsecond to think about what you're saying before you post.

You realize so many bugs in this game are caused by being a client right? People complaining about host migrations are actually complaining about a failure in progress-protection systems. People complaining about high ping or laggy hosts are actually complaining about a lack of robust matchmaking. People complaining about low enemy spawns are actually complaining about a "build parity" lie for cross-play. All the people asking for dedicated servers are just lumping several issues that should be fixed under one umbrella.

This game could have dedicated servers, and it wouldn't actually solve any of these issues, you'd just run into them less frequently. A subscription model is also just a terrible suggestion. We have enough subscriptions stuffed down our throats in everyday industries. No need to add it to a game that's made a name for itself and exceeded expectations without one for 11 years.

Edited February 23 by Voltage

[Hexerin]

5 minutes ago, Voltage said:

You realize so many bugs in this game are caused by being a client right? People complaining about host migrations are actually complaining about a failure in progress-protection systems. People complaining about high ping or laggy hosts are actually complaining about a lack of robust matchmaking. People complaining about low enemy spawns are actually complaining about a "build parity" lie for cross-play. All the people asking for dedicated servers are just lumping several issues that should be fixed under one umbrella.

This game could have dedicated servers, and it wouldn't actually solve any of these issues, you'd just run into them less frequently. A subscription model is also just a terrible suggestion. We have enough subscriptions stuffed down our throats in everyday industries. No need to add it to a game that's made a name for itself and exceeded expectations without one for 11 years.

• Client bugs should be fixed, that's on DE for ignoring them.
• Progress-protection would be fixed with dedicated servers, as the dedicated server would be the host (and thus progress would never be lost to migrations).
• Dedicated servers would fix latency for the majority, providing a stable connection across all matches as they'd be connected to a consistent server.
  • Those who would have high latency to dedicated servers, can simply choose to continue playing on the traditional peer to peer.
• Low enemy spawns would be entirely fixed by dedicated servers, as the dedicated servers would always provide the proper full enemy density.
  • Enemy density issues are only an issue because of inferior console hardware that is incapable of handling the processing of full density.

Again, take a microsecond to think about what you're saying before you post.

[Shodian87]

2 hours ago, Tesla_Reloaded said:

Those games are using dedicated servers. Wouldn't it be so wonderful to see the same thing in Warframe, right

Thank you! So many people don't understand what they are asking for when they ask for dedicated servers. If you can't connect to a server, you don't get to play, when I myself am the server I don't have to worry about that. 

 

10 minutes ago, Hexerin said:

Dedicated servers would fix latency for the majority

Or make it worse for others. 

 

41 minutes ago, Hexerin said:

Dedicated servers would mean zero host migrations, as the dedicated server is the host while the four players are all clients.

Then when the server connection is lost half way through the mission and everyone still loses progress.

[Hexerin]

7 minutes ago, Shodian87 said:

Or make it worse for others.

Which is already covered in my post, which you conveniently cut out because it doesn't support your weak ass narrative.

7 minutes ago, Shodian87 said:

Then when the server connection is lost half way through the mission and everyone still loses progress.

Which would be exceptionally rare, as dedicated servers have redundancies to reduce the chances of actual service downtime.

Ya'll have literally no actual legitimate arguments here. Just stop trying.

Edited February 23 by Hexerin

[Voltage]

29 minutes ago, Hexerin said:

• Client bugs should be fixed, that's on DE for ignoring them.
• Progress-protection would be fixed with dedicated servers, as the dedicated server would be the host (and thus progress would never be lost to migrations).
• Dedicated servers would fix latency for the majority, providing a stable connection across all matches as they'd be connected to a consistent server.
  • Those who would have high latency to dedicated servers, can simply choose to continue playing on the traditional peer to peer.
• Low enemy spawns would be entirely fixed by dedicated servers, as the dedicated servers would always provide the proper full enemy density.
  • Enemy density issues are only an issue because of inferior console hardware that is incapable of handling the processing of full density.

• Right, which is what I just said.
• You'd be a client to the server. It wouldn't fix those issues. Don't believe me? Go play Conclave on a "dedicated server".
  • DE finally fixed doors and Operator Transference by addressing those root problems. Slapping on dedicated servers back in the day when Transference was not client side wouldn't have suddenly created a smooth experience.
• Stable connections are a relative concept. I host most of my missions by setting my ping settings low for matchmaking, and because I'm on the east coast of the States, my hosts when I am client are always relatively stable. A dedicated server certainly adds stability as an infrastructure, but it doesn't magically fix the stability for players from remote areas of the world.
• You say enemy spawns would be fixed by dedicated servers, then admit that it has nothing to do with servers, but physical on-device processing. Which is it?

29 minutes ago, Hexerin said:

Again, take a microsecond to think about what you're saying before you post.

Projecting that I didn't think about this topic, your comment, or my response gave me a good chuckle.

9 minutes ago, Hexerin said:

Ya'll have literally no actual legitimate arguments here. Just stop trying.

Reading this just makes me want to comment more as I know I'm getting under the skin of someone resorting to mud-slinging.

I don't see how dedicated servers magically fixes many of the issues Warframe has for matchmaking/client bugs/etc., and I certainly don't want to pay a subscription to play this game online.

Edited February 23 by Voltage

[Hexerin]

3 minutes ago, Voltage said:

• You say enemy spawns would be fixed by dedicated servers, then admit that it has nothing to do with servers, but physical on-device processing. Which is it?

Re-read what I said, because you clearly failed to comprehend it the first time.

[Shodian87]

16 minutes ago, Hexerin said:

Which is already covered in my post, which you conveniently cut out because it doesn't support your weak ass narrative

You do know how networking works, right?

[Voltage]

1 minute ago, Hexerin said:

Re-read what I said, because you clearly failed to comprehend it the first time.

I read it fine the first time. Serving increased enemy spawns through a dedicated server to a player on underperforming or outdated hardware isn't going to suddenly allow them to avoid crashing/instability to play the game. I frequently have swirly-crossplay logo players crash 5 minutes into a Steel Path mission while I'm hosting. I always follow that up with politely asking their platform. The same thing would happen if you took a dedicated server and shoved the spawns down their throat. The problem is the hardware and this false "build parity" between platforms, not who (or what) is hosting. That point has nothing to do with "dedicated servers", which is what I said in my first comment.

[PollexMessier]

And I wouldn't, because I like peer to peer. In fact I would likely stop playing all together if it's anything like my experience with any other mmo with dedicated servers. And knowing DE, it'd be worse.

[DrivaMain]

Welp looks like the goalpost has been moved from "When is X-Save" to "Ded Server When".

Warframe is known for its ease of access regardless of Hardware and Network capabilities. Shoving a subscription based model will turn a lot of players away. 

I think the next best thing to ask is a dedicated "Host" button. Don't want to deal with client bugs? Then be the Host! Let the poor guy who joins your questionable setup deal with those. 

If paid games like Payday 2 can thrive with full lobbies even with a "force host" option, I am sure Warframe can too.

Edited February 23 by DrivaMain

[OniDax]

I wouldn't. I've already spent quite a bit of money over the past 10 years on Warframe, more than I've spent on any other single game. I wouldn't pay anything more for dedicated servers. DE can afford dedicated servers if they want them.

[trst]

2 hours ago, Hexerin said:

Dedicated servers would mean zero host migrations, as the dedicated server is the host while the four players are all clients.

Maybe take a microsecond to think about what you're saying before you post.

Actually considering OP is talking about the option to have dedicated servers by paying for it there would still be migrations. Since that implies that the current system would still be in place there's still the situation in which one disconnects due to their own connection and could play without connection to the server "host". Meaning yes you could still get migrated if YOU dropped connection to the server (host) and got put into a solo session after reconnecting. Plus the edge case of what happens if one's subscription lapsed mid-mission.

Or y'know just make it a full on drop if you lost connection to the server which is what would happen if it was dedicated only. That'd be so much better than the current system of having a migration that might fail.

 

edit: Oh and of course the situation in which the dedicated server itself goes down either to maintenance or infrastructure issues. Thus resulting in either a migration to the current regular servers or a full on drop. All in all OP's suggestion or full dedicated wouldn't be free from migrations/drops.

Edited February 23 by trst