Gaming

3319 readers

1706 users here now

!gaming is a community for gaming noobs through gaming aficionados. Unlike !games, we don’t take ourselves quite as serious. Shitposts and memes are welcome.

Our Rules:

1. Keep it civil.

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only.

2. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry.

I should not need to explain this one.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Try not to repost anything posted within the past month.

Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.

Logo uses joystick by liftarn

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

873

It's wild that they get away with charging for it (startrek.website)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

231 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah which is my entire point, because both of those examples were ways to find user hosted servers as well as ones hosted by the developers. So your argument doesn't make sense as a retort to what the initial OP was saying IMHO, which included:

Then, all you really need to run is a simple connection server that lets people search for game servers.

Those are what Steam and Battle.net are in this context, the connection server, which is different from the game server which was meant by "let the users run the servers".

[+] [email protected] -7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Those are what Steam and Battle.net are in this context, the connection server, which is different from the game server which was meant by “let the users run the servers”.

This is what I meant by "moved away from"

As you also state, there are currently games with user-run servers. With the exception of Minecraft, they all do less business than games with a centralized server.

There's a reason for that, and it isn't some mythical cartel. If there was such a cartel, then there wouldn't be games that host their own servers.

Any sort of competitive game, as an easy example, will always be more popular if it has a server hosted by the game itself, to make cheating harder. Even GTA's online play was blasted by players for not having enough security. The rise of fast internet led to demand for more multiplayer, and especially competitive-multiplayer games.

Im old enough to remember reading the debates on "is multiplayer worth companies spending time on" in PC Gamer and other physical magazines, at the time. The original mentality was that multiplayer modes were a waste of time that detracted from game quality by diverting resources, because games were too hard to find anyway.

Idk why people are so desperate to find supervillains everywhere that they refuse to acknowledge how the current system evolved, historically.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Those are what Steam and Battle.net are in this context, the connection server, which is different from the game server which was meant by “let the users run the servers”.

This is what I meant by “moved away from”

Ok, that was really unclear from your OP, hence my question. Thanks for clearing that up.

With the exception of Minecraft, they all do less business than games with a centralized server.

"If you ignore this falsifying date my hypothesis holds" seems like a weird way of arguing, but ok. Minecraft is indeed a popular multiplayer game with user run servers.

Idk why people are so desperate to find supervillains everywhere

I'm not, I just wasn't clear on whether you were talking about connection servers or game servers, and was ready to break a lance for the latter.