I would pay/subscribe montly for dedicated servers.

[Hexerin]

2 hours ago, trst said:

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.

You wouldn't be matched with peer to peer players if you're using the dedicated servers, the same as it works already with the cross-play toggle.

My god, is there something in the water today? So many people posting without even a slight thought to what they're saying...

[Aldain]

I can hear the finger of the monkey's paw curling as we speak.

[trst]

1 hour ago, Hexerin said:

You wouldn't be matched with peer to peer players if you're using the dedicated servers, the same as it works already with the cross-play toggle.

My god, is there something in the water today? So many people posting without even a slight thought to what they're saying...

Might wanna work on that reading comprehension but I'll try to make it more simple for you.

A host migration happens when the a client player loses connection to the host player and needs to be migrated to a new host. If a player playing on a dedicated server (which is now the host "player" in this situation) lost connection to said server (entirely possible due to poor connection quality, ISP issues, service outages, and/or server maintenance) they would then either get dropped out of the session entirely or migrated into a solo session.

Also if dedicated was the only option then losing connection to any of those issues would mean getting dropped out of the mission entirely. A considerably worse outcome than the chance of a host migration failing in the current system.

[(XBOX)K1jker]

I'd pay too but only if it's reasonable pricing.. which de is not good at 😅 I happily paid up in other games I played, which also came with goodies which I'm fine with. 

[Chewarette]

That'll always be a tough subject. Servers have advantages (mostly stability, solving instantaneously 80% of Warframe's bugs) and disadvantages (maintenance, cost, downtime, set locations so you may have poor ping forever).

But that's a moot point to discuss - they'll never have mission servers. We should be grateful they bought a few for Dojos (+ relays/orbiters obviously), but that won't go further - mostly because the cost would need to be compensated by a fee paid by players, which would drive the game directly into the ground.

[Star700]

While I agree that there should be a better handling of the server hosting thing cuz host migration is annoying as all heck, but making us pay for the multi-player that some people desperately need for certain mission types ostracizes more people than you think, and not everyone can afford to pay to play games.

[MutoManiac]

I’d rather pay a flat fee than subscription. I dropped all Adobe products when they switched to subscription. Subscriptions for software is the worst idea for consumers in general. I rarely experience host migrations and if people are actually half decent, the host doesn’t usually bail on them if that is the reason some of them leave. As much as I love WF, if they did that, I would leave and not come back and so would others.

[Slayer-.]

I'm glad you're rich enough to pay to play.  

[Skoomaseller]

probably wouldn't wanna pay a subscription because we have billions of those already and i wouldn't wanna tack on 1 more on my wallet, and don't really care if DE actually does provide dedicated servers or not for us in the future, but...

...if they're gonna go down this road pls pls pls I hope they put some servers in the SEA + Oceania region because my SEA ass doesn't wanna connect to a server in #*!%ing Ontario, Canada and play on 30 billion ping just to do a quick relic cracking mission

[(XBOX)C11H22O11]

Very generous of you to pay for everyone.

I can't even remember the last time a host migration failed for me

[(PSN)slightconfuzzled]

I am personally limited as far as my knowledge and understanding around the implementation of servers, the potential costs involved, the upsides, downsides, benefits, resources, advantages, as far as what it would mean for (different) player experiences, and so on. As in other people I have interacted with, do have far superior knowledge and understanding on some if not most of what I mentioned. That being said, I am generally more knowledgable and skilled with rhetoric and how people present information and understanding in general, as in sharing or explaining their knowledge and understanding, the framing of and communication involved. Or alternatively, how people can attempt to pass off their opinions, and and surface level understanding as more than it actually is.

So far, in my experience, people with actual legitimate understanding and required knowledge about much of the topics variables and to a satisfactory level, to give them a minimum degree of credibility, they are usually relatively rare. Then with that also being said, generally, so far, those that do actually seem more technically competent and knowledgable, in my experience, usually tend to point out why its unlikely to happen, and then usually point out holes or flaws in other people (who don't seem as knowledgable) suggestions or arguments of insistence (with little to no explanative power), just misplaced confidence in the power of anonymity and sliding into ad hominem. In the neutral. As in addressing different points, not necessarily "taking a side", though some may have leanings/opinions. 

That also being said, again, could be reasons for that, and since I don't know as much as I think I should, to know better, I'm always down to learn more from those that do, Maybe there is a very realistic and feasible way DE could switch to servers that would be a net positive all around, and then like in a month or something, they do, and it turns out wonderful. Regardless, really think we should try and avoid framing the conversation around "I can and so would pay money via a subscription for this". Like the split that would cause in the player base for one, would be pretty divisive, in ways beyond the intent of the idea. 

 

[Aerikx]

1 hour ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

Maybe there is a very realistic and feasible way DE could switch to servers that would be a net positive all around, and then like in a month or something, they do, and it turns out wonderful.

That is pretty much what the post is about. 

Dedicated Servers would require not only a large amount of Income. But reliable, consistent income. 

Which is why games with Dedicated servers either:

A. Require a Monthly Subscription

B. Have extremely predatory monetization

C. Heavy Micro-transaction

D. Required content locked behind Pay Walls

All 4 of the above would send this community into a frenzy.

The concept mentioned earlier over "Peer to Peer will play with each other" and "Those who sub will play with each other" is crazy to me. 

1 hour ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

"I can and so would pay money via a subscription for this". Like the split that would cause in the player base for one, would be pretty divisive, in ways beyond the intent of the idea. 

Nail on the head. Additionally, it'd end up making very unhappy subscribers as the vast of not extreme majority of players would not subscribe. 

I've seen this monkey's paw finger curl up in other games....

*Looks at elder scrolls online*

Where at first it's just an option. But slim to no one takes it, so those who pay complain. 

In this situation, they'd be complaining cause they'd be paying monthly for the solo / conclave-like (long wait times as MM would have a VERY small pool to pull from) experience.

Then the devs find they have to incentivise the subscription so content starts getting made specifically for the subscription. Boosters, small and insignificant drip feeds of the premium currency.

Then it turns into exclusive content only obtainable by subbing, content actively planned and made solely for those who subscribe in order to further push players into subscribing via fomo. 

At those stage the sub option is actively pulling away from the game's content development but everyone (devs included) are blind to it.

I can see it now...

DE announced the March 2024  Subscription Event! Mesa's Standoff:

"Subscribe for the exclusive limited one time only 'Gunslinger Mesa' skin, Subscription Booster Buff (Triple Affinity, Focus, Standing, and 20% Boost to Mod and Loot drops),Accelerated, and access to Warframe's High End Dedicated Servers."

Everyone in ESO said it'd never happen but look at how that ended. 

It's The Heirloom Collection but monthly. 

[Tsukinoki]

Dedicated servers wouldn't really fix most of the issues warframe has, and would cause quite a few more.

Added onto that the dev time where literally nothing else would be able to be put out (due to net code needing to be redone from the ground up), and you're looking at 4-6 months of no updates, fixes, or anything else as they try to get dedicated servers as a possibility.

And then months after that of issues after issue and bug after bug after bug with the dedicated servers.

 

You're asking for a massive time sink from DE where we go into a very deep content drought, all to prevent a relatively rare issue.
So basically DE should throw a ton of money, lose a lot of players, and not have any substantial updates or progress to show for it for months, just to remove one issue (and even then not entirely).
Yeah, I wonder why DE hasn't made dedicated servers a thing yet.....

27 minutes ago, Aerikx said:

1 hour ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

"I can and so would pay money via a subscription for this". Like the split that would cause in the player base for one, would be pretty divisive, in ways beyond the intent of the idea. 

Nail on the head. Additionally, it'd end up making very unhappy subscribers as the vast of not extreme majority of players would not subscribe. 

I've seen this monkey's paw finger curl up in other games....

*Looks at elder scrolls online*

Where at first it's just an option. But slim to no one takes it, so those who pay complain. 

In this situation, they'd be complaining cause they'd be paying monthly for the solo / conclave-like (long wait times as MM would have a VERY small pool to pull from) experience.

Then the devs find they have to incentivise the subscription so content starts getting made specifically for the subscription. Boosters, small and insignificant drip feeds of the premium currency.

Then it turns into exclusive content only obtainable by subbing, content actively planned and made solely for those who subscribe in order to further push players into subscribing via fomo. 

At those stage the sub option is actively pulling away from the game's content development but everyone (devs included) are blind to it.

I can see it now...

DE announced the March 2024  Subscription Event! Mesa's Standoff:

"Subscribe for the exclusive limited one time only 'Gunslinger Mesa' skin, Subscription Booster Buff (Triple Affinity, Focus, Standing, and 20% Boost to Mod and Loot drops),Accelerated, and access to Warframe's High End Dedicated Servers."

Everyone in ESO said it'd never happen but look at how that ended. 

It's The Heirloom Collection but monthly. 

You know the funny thing about your comment here?
Very early on in CBT the devs and playerbase were actually talking about an optional subscription model, to keep it afloat as back then it was very possible it would just flop and die), and DE ultimately decided against it with roughly the reasoning you bring up here:

It would create a large division in the playerbase between the players that have the subscription and the players that don't, and that they would need to constantly make new and more stuff to put behind the subscription for it to be worth it, which would just mean that the people without a subscription would be left behind.

They decided that it wasn't worth it for either group in that case and very soundly rejected the idea.

 

So DE isn't blind to the issue that an optional subscription would cause and have actively decided against it in the past when they needed the influx of money a lot more than they do now a days.

[Ersedu]

Sounds like you just need to reduce your range or get better internet 

[Tiltskillet]

What have they said about the possibility of dedicated servers with Soulframe?

[Fred_Avant_2019]

Options, ping limit 100 ms.

The game is functional for the most part. Enough that if you have friends in the same continent and have decent hardware, it's unlikely you run into any major issues.

Yes you do come across some the couple host migrations from time to time, but in the grand scheme of things, when you put all your missions together, it's a minority.

I play daily for a couple hours have crossplay on and live in western europe. No migrations since a week.

 

Perhaps check out your hardware/net, see if there's not something there preventing you from playing.

[Hexerin]

13 hours ago, trst said:

Might wanna work on that reading comprehension but I'll try to make it more simple for you.

A host migration happens when the a client player loses connection to the host player and needs to be migrated to a new host. If a player playing on a dedicated server (which is now the host "player" in this situation) lost connection to said server (entirely possible due to poor connection quality, ISP issues, service outages, and/or server maintenance) they would then either get dropped out of the session entirely or migrated into a solo session.

Also if dedicated was the only option then losing connection to any of those issues would mean getting dropped out of the mission entirely. A considerably worse outcome than the chance of a host migration failing in the current system.

If you lose connection to the dedicated server, the game would attempt to reconnect to the dedicated server like literally every other game that uses dedicated servers. Host migration might be an option that you could choose to do manually (would be up to DE if they integrate that), but that wouldn't be the default action by the game.

Think, brother, think. This is not a complicated topic.

[Xzorn]

Subscription models are for persistent content updates and quality support.
If you thought you were paying for dedicated servers then that's a weird outlook.

It's like Discord asking for money. I didn't pay for MIRC so why would I pay for Discord?
I didn't pay for TCP/IPX services. Why would I pay for UDP and P2P services?

This sorta stuff has been free since the internet was made public and most of it's still around.