this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2025
100 points (98.1% liked)
Games
33944 readers
520 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It wouldn't be, necessarily. A bunch of games (survival games, in particular) still give you that choice. It's cheap, reliable and doesn't need a ton of people playing your game.
The problem is then you can't do matchmaking, you need a server browser, which is a lot clunkier. And it does get harder to avoid cheating and so on. The experience is also dependent on how close the server is from you, and if it's just some guy's computer the server goes away when they're not playing.
For fighting games specifically, where "room matches" are still a thing in most games, I do see it becoming an option as a separate mode. And man, if you're doing something like Multiversus I do think you should consider having it ready to go as a fallback, because this is a bad look and hurts future games that may want to give this a shot.
You can do both dedicated servers and official matchmaking servers. It's what counter strike does as an example.
That way if the official servers go offline, you only lose the matchmaking, but the game isn't totally dead.
Yeah, that's what I was trying to say there at the bottom. I think that's a better fit if you assign it by mode, especially in fighting games, where the ranked/unranked/lobby difference is well established, but at least it should be in the back pocket for a F2P fighting game to avoid this scenario.