[Request] Dedicated Servers & 'beta' Game Status

[FreshNinja007]

DE, you have been making more than enough money from players over the past 3+ years to justify the expense of dedicated servers.

 

The recent 'host migration' issues completely negating longer runs for people has detrimentally impacted player experiences across a wide portion of regions and playstyles.

 

WarFrame players need dedicated servers.  No more excuses.  You have made far more than enough money to do it already.

 

-------------------------------

 

Also you are not a 'Beta' product.  You stopped being in 'Beta' once you started charging money ~3 years ago.  Saying you are in 'Beta' does not protect you from any criticism you receive.

 

It should be seen as unprofessional and frankly embarassing to have a product in 'Beta' for over 3 years.  Online games are meant to be constantly patched and improved so the 'Beta' label stopped being relevant a long time ago.

[Magicfingers]

and how do you know they are making more than enough money to cover the cost of dedicated servers?

[V45H]

dedicated servers will never happen thats not how the game is ment to be run the netcode one isnt designed for it plus the sheer number of players is overwhelming

 

this is exactly the reason the ping options are in the settings on top of that instead of having low ping with people near you you could have poor ping all the time if the servers are based far from you

Edited February 2, 2016 by V45H

[Loswaith]

DE, you have been making more than enough money from players over the past 3+ years to justify the expense of dedicated servers.

 

The recent 'host migration' issues completely negating longer runs for people has detrimentally impacted player experiences across a wide portion of regions and playstyles.

 

WarFrame players need dedicated servers.  No more excuses.  You have made far more than enough money to do it already.

 

...

Warframe really doesn't need dedicated servers.  Dedicated servers often cause many other issues as often a single machine hosts more than a single game at any one time, as well as the further away from the server you are the worse the ping, meaning Warframe would need servers in every region to be worth while (while denying players the ability to join each other across those regions).  Most of which is a waste of money given the game is primarily 4 players to a match.

 

What it does need is more options in regards to host selection rather than just ping itself.  For example; letting players pick hosting options like priority (hosts get picked from this group first), normal (as it works now, second only to priority) and rarely (only will select the player as a host if the whole squad is rarely or they are solo in a match).

 

While host migration issues for the host leaving are more a communication issue on the players side with bugs that DE intend to fix.

 

 

...

 

Also you are not a 'Beta' product.  You stopped being in 'Beta' once you started charging money ~3 years ago.  Saying you are in 'Beta' does not protect you from any criticism you receive.

 

It should be seen as unprofessional and frankly embarassing to have a product in 'Beta' for over 3 years.  ...

By that notion a game in kickstarter is a complete game as well because it is taking money, and clearly that is no where near the case.  In fact, by that standard, every game ever made is never in a beta because at some point money is given to produce the game.  Games simply don't get made without some kind of funding.

 

Games are often in beta for 3 years or more, the consumer however rarely sees the game in that stage.  However in the case of Warframe it wouldn't exist without the player funding it in it's beta state.

 

Simple fact is you knew the game was in beta when you started playing it.  If you don't want to accept a game in beta state (regardless how long it is) then don't start playing one that is.

 

While online games are not meant to patched and updated, that is entirely at the discretion of the developer and there are plenty of them that aren't.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Loswaith

[FrostDragoon]

Disagree with it needing dedicated serves, but the Beta tag does need to go. Not just because the TC is parroting TotalBiscuit, but the game's state is well beyond that of what "Beta" normally implies.

 

In general, "Beta" is something that is "still in development," but the difference between it and Alpha is that it has a somewhat functional build beyond just proof of concept and placeholders. The other major component of Beta builds is that they are considered unfinished--not a final build. In that sense, DE has held on to the Beta tag, but lots of online games are constantly improving and never consider themselves "finalized." They also do not consider themselves as "in development" either. WoW, LoL, HotS, Rift, etc, etc, etc. If DE were to be completely honest, they would consider themselves in the same state as these others games. The core game is done. They only continue to improve upon it and add to it. The dead giveaway here is that the Second Dream can be considered an expansion--not just an update. THAT is why they need to drop this "Beta" pretense.

[FreshNinja007]

Warframe really doesn't need dedicated servers.  Dedicated servers often cause many other issues as often a single machine hosts more than a single game at any one time, as well as the further away from the server you are the worse the ping, meaning Warframe would need servers in every region to be worth while (while denying players the ability to join each other across those regions).  Most of which is a waste of money given the game is primarily 4 players to a match.

 

What it does need is more options in regards to host selection rather than just ping itself.  For example; letting players pick hosting options like priority (hosts get picked from this group first), normal (as it works now, second only to priority) and rarely (only will select the player as a host if the whole squad is rarely or they are solo in a match).

 

While host migration issues for the host leaving are more a communication issue on the players side with bugs that DE intend to fix.

 

 

By that notion a game in kickstarter is a complete game as well because it is taking money, and clearly that is no where near the case.  In fact, by that standard, every game ever made is never in a beta because at some point money is given to produce the game.  Games simply don't get made without some kind of funding.

 

Games are often in beta for 3 years or more, the consumer however rarely sees the game in that stage.  However in the case of Warframe it wouldn't exist without the player funding it in it's beta state.

 

Simple fact is you knew the game was in beta when you started playing it.  If you don't want to accept a game in beta state (regardless how long it is) then don't start playing one that is.

 

While online games are not meant to patched and updated, that is entirely at the discretion of the developer and there are plenty of them that aren't.

 

KickStarter for games is meant to help fund development, explicitly so.  At some point the creators are obligated to 'release' the product as promised rather than keep things in a perpetual 'beta' state.

 

You're comparing something that is asking directly for development funding aka a 'funding pitch' and something that has been active for 3+ years with oodles of updates and the core game already intact for that period of time.

 

WarFrame is not in beta despite your contrarian statements.  It is merely kept on like a rancid infested tumor in order to deflect criticism.

 

I have no problems with whatever they call it, but I am hoping they drop the 'beta' status already because it should be embarassing for DE as a studio to have this perpetual released 'beta' for so long.

 

Games in development in internal/closed alphas/betas that aren't released to the public are fine.  They can stay in that state as long as the developer feels they need to do so (and can fund it).

 

Host migration issues are a huge issue and have been a huge issue for years.  If nothing else, the OPTION of dedicated servers would greatly assist in enhancing the stability and functionality of the game when it comes to networking.

 

One of the primary disadvantages to P2P hosting is not just that most player upload speeds are heavily restricted/low in the USA due to asynchronous broadband bandwidth, but also the potential for cheats/exploits is substantially greater than if a central server is validating the data.  From a security standpoint, dedicated servers would be a fantastic boon to the game's security, stability, and enhanced capabilities to ban cheaters/hackers.

 

Despite the lack of a persistant world, this game is still considered an 'MMO' and most MMOs do run on dedicated servers.  Path of Exile doesn't use peer to peer matchmaking; they run on dedicated servers and are even more of an indie title than this one.  WarFrame lost the indie/small studio label as soon as they were acquired by a major Chinese company.

Edited February 2, 2016 by FreshNinja007

[FreshNinja007]

and how do you know they are making more than enough money to cover the cost of dedicated servers?

 

Because of the monetization model that DE has been running the past 3 years and their recent acquisition by a Chinese conglomerate.

Look at the platinum prices in the shop and imagine trying to get platinum prior to the trading system implementation (which only happened after 2+ years) to trade for plat.

 

WarFrame slots and Weapon slots have always been platinum-only and considering the nature of the game, not everyone would be able or willing to shell out the money for it.

 

This game has changed greatly since I first noticed it way back in 2013.  Some good changes and some questionable ones.  But make no mistake that DE has more than enough money to get things done.  Other much-smaller games with far less players have dedicated servers from Day One.

dedicated servers will never happen thats not how the game is ment to be run the netcode one isnt designed for it plus the sheer number of players is overwhelming

 

this is exactly the reason the ping options are in the settings on top of that instead of having low ping with people near you you could have poor ping all the time if the servers are based far from you

 

Do you have intimate detailed knowledge of the netcode of the game and servers?  Do you know how they are coded?

Rather than talking from pure ignorance, I happen to be someone who's done actual networking and coding.

I can safely tell you that the difference is not that great.  It can be done depending on how they coded it and they easily have made enough money to implement it in the existing netcode (or recode it completely).

Early games back in the 90s and 00s would have both a 'LAN' (P2P) mode and an 'Online' mode.  It isn't difficult to do.

 

Smaller games with far more limited budgets and smaller numbers of concurrent players are easily able to afford dedicated servers; WarFrame has no more excuses for it.

 

Ping issues would require multiple servers in various regions, just like other games have already done.

Edited February 2, 2016 by FreshNinja007

[FrostDragoon]

KickStarter for games is meant to help fund development, explicitly so.  At some point the creators are obligated to 'release' the product as promised rather than keep things in a perpetual 'beta' state.

 

You're comparing something that is asking directly for development funding aka a 'funding pitch' and something that has been active for 3+ years with oodles of updates and the core game already intact for that period of time.

 

WarFrame is not in beta despite your contrarian statements.  It is merely kept on like a rancid infested tumor in order to deflect criticism.

 

I have no problems with whatever they call it, but I am hoping they drop the 'beta' status already because it should be embarassing for DE as a studio to have this perpetual released 'beta' for so long.

 

Games in development in internal/closed alphas/betas that aren't released to the public are fine.  They can stay in that state as long as the developer feels they need to do so (and can fund it).

 

Host migration issues are a huge issue and have been a huge issue for years.  If nothing else, the OPTION of dedicated servers would greatly assist in enhancing the stability and functionality of the game when it comes to networking.

 

One of the primary disadvantages to P2P hosting is not just that most player upload speeds are heavily restricted/low in the USA due to asynchronous broadband bandwidth, but also the potential for cheats/exploits is substantially greater than if a central server is validating the data.  From a security standpoint, dedicated servers would be a fantastic boon to the game's security, stability, and enhanced capabilities to ban cheaters/hackers.

 

Despite the lack of a persistant world, this game is still considered an 'MMO' and most MMOs do run on dedicated servers.  Path of Exile doesn't use peer to peer matchmaking; they run on dedicated servers and are even more of an indie title than this one.  WarFrame lost the indie/small studio label as soon as they were acquired by a major Chinese company.

 

The problems PoE has faced solely because they run on dedicated servers would injure Warframe more than making that shift would help it. The "host migration" issues you speak of stem from poor event implementation that they eventually fixed. Go read those threads for more info about it, but stop pretending like people are doing it just to cheat. They were exploiting a flaw in the system (which could be called a kind of cheating), but they weren't duping items, hacking the game, or otherwise directly manipulating the game in a way that violates the ToS. They were just aborting missions if they didn't like the Acolyte drops. That's it.

 

In comparison, PoE has had such a stranglehold on their net and are/were so worried about cheating that they instead created system wide desync and prevented certain play styles which should have been viable from being a possibility. Warframe doesn't usually have those kinds of issues--especially if you ensure that you are the host and that you have good net speeds.

 

The rest of your reasoning here just doesn't hold water, and I'm not motivated to piece it apart. The short version is simple: not every game needs dedicated servers--especially PvE oriented ones.

[The-Aurora]

DE, you have been making more than enough money from players over the past 3+ years to justify the expense of dedicated servers.

CoD doesnt have dedicated servers either, pure p2p and look how much money they make. 
And they never denied there wont be dedicated servers, just that its not comming anytime soon (~1 year ago). Plus the only thing that would make sence for them add dedicated servers are competetive game modes like conclave, not regular missions, p2p is just fine.
 

The recent 'host migration' issues completely negating longer runs for people has detrimentally impacted player experiences across a wide portion of regions and playstyles.

Eh, what ? I've never had any problems with host migration and I am playing +3 years. Try to lower ping limit if you are having so many problems with p2p down to like 100ms.

WarFrame players need dedicated servers.  No more excuses.  You have made far more than enough money to do it already.

No they dont. You obiviously have no idea how much money game development costs, do you ? Plus you have no idea how much money they have, so stop talking bull****.

 

-------------------------------

 

Also you are not a 'Beta' product.  You stopped being in 'Beta' once you started charging money ~3 years ago.  Saying you are in 'Beta' does not protect you from any criticism you receive.

Sorry mate, but you are stupid, just because there is microtransation system in place doesnt mean the game shouldnt be in beta.

 

It should be seen as unprofessional and frankly embarassing to have a product in 'Beta' for over 3 years.  Online games are meant to be constantly patched and improved so the 'Beta' label stopped being relevant a long time ago.

You are way too stupid (I would like to use other words but I rather not), arent you ?

There is no embarassment for them being in beta in 3 years, they are relatively small studio. There are games in CLOSED DEVELOPMENT (no official play-able version to the public) for hell lot of years and still not released without any info (great example is project titan by blizzard that got canceled after 8 years or so) or games that were in alpha/beta versions alot of time. 

Plus for game being in beta gives developers way more freedom in game's development because they can literally change the game however and whenever they want.

 

Overall your criticism is stupid and you have no idea of any game's development.