4 ms·

> Every game released whose developers have chosen to complicate its design with a client-server architecture. Huh? Client-server architecture does make things

> Every game released whose developers have chosen to complicate its design with a client-server architecture. Huh? Client-server architecture does make things more complicated to implement but it's not THAT bad. And you (usually[1]) do it in service of multiplayer, not because you're big budget or just want to complicate things. Among Us was literally a three-person team. [1] I find there are some major benefits to it, especially in post-LLM-world, and have been strongly considering it for some of my solo-dev single-player projects.

Folcon 5mo ago
Agreed, I'm pretty much doing the same thing for my indie game It's now a lot more tractable to build a multiplayer game, on the other hand balancing it is a whole other kettle of fish
fluoridation 5mo ago
A lot of games have tacked-on online features to excuse the existence of the server to enable DRM, and a lot of multiplayer games arbitrarily don't offer a way for clients to double as local servers like in the heyday of arena shooters.
- furyofantares 5mo ago
  Sure, but the existence of such annoying things does not mean that's the only reason to use a client-server architecture and that it would only affect those games.
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
  - fluoridation 5mo ago
    It's not the only reason, but that does cover the vast majority of online-required games.
  - account42 5mo ago
    It's the main reason for keeping the server part away from players though.
Chaosvex 5mo ago
Among Us is also incredibly simple compared to the services required to support some AAA games and even then, their networking code was riddled with exploits that no professional would have written, including RCEs. Didn't stop it from being a fun, successful game but there's no comparison to the work and complexity involved in larger games.
- furyofantares 5mo ago
  I'm aware. What's that got to do with anything?
  - Chaosvex 5mo ago
    I'm countering your argument that it's "not that bad". If that wasn't your point with mentioning the three person team, what was? Recap: > Client-server architecture does make things more complicated to implement but it's not THAT bad. Among Us was literally a three-person team. The scope of the discussion extends beyond simple games like Among Us and some games require highly complex networked architectures that would be non-trivial to open up.
    - furyofantares 5mo ago
      Ah, I see. Well, the post I was responding to reads to me like a denial of the existence of games like Among Us when it says it wouldn't affect three person dev teams making games on a shoestring budget, and gives off the weird implication that it would only affect big budget games. That said, I don't mind a tangent, and I have built services for large multiplayer games and it really is not that bad.
      - Chaosvex 5mo ago
        I've also worked on MMOs and the architectures there can get quite hairy, particularly when they're deeply plumbed into shared services and infrastructure that they couldn't operate without. Those layers occasionally have closed-source licensed tech mixed in there. Untangling the entire lot to make the game available upon closure would be a nightmare in some cases. I've also contributed to game server emulation (pre-professionally) to keep them alive, so preserving games is a cause I support, even if I don't think it's necessarily always going to be trivial.
VorpalWay 5mo ago
Remember back in the old days when you could just run your own game server, even though it wasn't open source? That would work too. Or peer to peer LAN gaming, why is that not popular any more? Designing a game to use developer hosted servers is a choice they made. Probably to squeeze money from microtransactions.
- darkwater 5mo ago
  > Or peer to peer LAN gaming, why is that not popular any more? This. I mean, modern game companies could setup a common (for every game) Headscale or similar solution, let group of friends create their own private VPN between them punching through any NAT and host their own distributed multiplayer game. Yes there is still some involvement server aide from the company but it could be easily shared between games. And if support ends, you still leave players with the option to use their own LAN/VPN system.
  - Jach 5mo ago
    Currently one of the features Valve's SDK offers is free use of network relays for P2P gaming without revealing each others IPs. Big and small games have used it. The main downside is if a game wants to offer cross-platform cross-play.
- imtringued 5mo ago
  Offering an .exe download is much less of a burden than open sourcing at gunpoint.
- gsich 5mo ago
  because real P2P is hard for realtime stuff. Be it timing or network port forwarding issues.
  - VorpalWay 5mo ago
    A self hosted server executable still works fine with that though. Plenty of games had that model.

Folcon 5mo ago

Agreed, I'm pretty much doing the same thing for my indie game It's now a lot more tractable to build a multiplayer game, on the other hand balancing it is a whole other kettle of fish

fluoridation 5mo ago

A lot of games have tacked-on online features to excuse the existence of the server to enable DRM, and a lot of multiplayer games arbitrarily don't offer a way for clients to double as local servers like in the heyday of arena shooters.

furyofantares 5mo ago
Sure, but the existence of such annoying things does not mean that's the only reason to use a client-server architecture and that it would only affect those games.
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
- fluoridation 5mo ago
  It's not the only reason, but that does cover the vast majority of online-required games.
- account42 5mo ago
  It's the main reason for keeping the server part away from players though.

Chaosvex 5mo ago

Among Us is also incredibly simple compared to the services required to support some AAA games and even then, their networking code was riddled with exploits that no professional would have written, including RCEs. Didn't stop it from being a fun, successful game but there's no comparison to the work and complexity involved in larger games.

furyofantares 5mo ago
I'm aware. What's that got to do with anything?
- Chaosvex 5mo ago
  I'm countering your argument that it's "not that bad". If that wasn't your point with mentioning the three person team, what was? Recap: > Client-server architecture does make things more complicated to implement but it's not THAT bad. Among Us was literally a three-person team. The scope of the discussion extends beyond simple games like Among Us and some games require highly complex networked architectures that would be non-trivial to open up.
  - furyofantares 5mo ago
    Ah, I see. Well, the post I was responding to reads to me like a denial of the existence of games like Among Us when it says it wouldn't affect three person dev teams making games on a shoestring budget, and gives off the weird implication that it would only affect big budget games. That said, I don't mind a tangent, and I have built services for large multiplayer games and it really is not that bad.
    - Chaosvex 5mo ago
      I've also worked on MMOs and the architectures there can get quite hairy, particularly when they're deeply plumbed into shared services and infrastructure that they couldn't operate without. Those layers occasionally have closed-source licensed tech mixed in there. Untangling the entire lot to make the game available upon closure would be a nightmare in some cases. I've also contributed to game server emulation (pre-professionally) to keep them alive, so preserving games is a cause I support, even if I don't think it's necessarily always going to be trivial.

VorpalWay 5mo ago

Remember back in the old days when you could just run your own game server, even though it wasn't open source? That would work too. Or peer to peer LAN gaming, why is that not popular any more? Designing a game to use developer hosted servers is a choice they made. Probably to squeeze money from microtransactions.

darkwater 5mo ago
> Or peer to peer LAN gaming, why is that not popular any more? This. I mean, modern game companies could setup a common (for every game) Headscale or similar solution, let group of friends create their own private VPN between them punching through any NAT and host their own distributed multiplayer game. Yes there is still some involvement server aide from the company but it could be easily shared between games. And if support ends, you still leave players with the option to use their own LAN/VPN system.
- Jach 5mo ago
  Currently one of the features Valve's SDK offers is free use of network relays for P2P gaming without revealing each others IPs. Big and small games have used it. The main downside is if a game wants to offer cross-platform cross-play.
imtringued 5mo ago
Offering an .exe download is much less of a burden than open sourcing at gunpoint.
gsich 5mo ago
because real P2P is hard for realtime stuff. Be it timing or network port forwarding issues.
- VorpalWay 5mo ago
  A self hosted server executable still works fine with that though. Plenty of games had that model.