3 ms·

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,

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.
  - gsich 5mo ago
    Yes, but that's not what usually is associated with P2P. That is normal client-server model.
    - VorpalWay 5mo ago
      In my original comment I mentioned both options though.
- Denatonium 5mo ago
  Timing and scalability are probably the biggest issues with realtime P2P applications. Scalability is becoming a bit less of an issue; with mid-splits becoming the norm on cable internet services and 5G SA rolling out, there's just a lot more bandwidth to go around. Timing issues can be worked around and GPS modules are cheap. NAT problems aren't usually that bad. Only a minority of networks use symmetric NAT implementations, with most seeming to be using port-restricted cone NAT (EIM/APDF), which can still communicate with any other NAT implementation using endpoint-independent mapping (EIM). Most CGNAT implementations that I've encountered use EIM, with some also doing endpoint-independent filtering (EIF). Between UDP hole-punching, UPnP, NAT-PMP, and IPv6, it's usually possible to establish a P2P connection between 2 endpoints. A game could use a hybrid client/server and P2P model, with the option to run entirely P2P while accepting its limitations.
pjmlp 5mo ago
Because they cannot profit from it hence why. Centralised servers allow for subscriptions and other stuff.
- account42 5mo ago
  Subscriptions are so last decade, it's all about microtransactions now. Not that this changes the motivations for having centralized servers.

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.
- gsich 5mo ago
  Yes, but that's not what usually is associated with P2P. That is normal client-server model.
  - VorpalWay 5mo ago
    In my original comment I mentioned both options though.
Denatonium 5mo ago
Timing and scalability are probably the biggest issues with realtime P2P applications. Scalability is becoming a bit less of an issue; with mid-splits becoming the norm on cable internet services and 5G SA rolling out, there's just a lot more bandwidth to go around. Timing issues can be worked around and GPS modules are cheap. NAT problems aren't usually that bad. Only a minority of networks use symmetric NAT implementations, with most seeming to be using port-restricted cone NAT (EIM/APDF), which can still communicate with any other NAT implementation using endpoint-independent mapping (EIM). Most CGNAT implementations that I've encountered use EIM, with some also doing endpoint-independent filtering (EIF). Between UDP hole-punching, UPnP, NAT-PMP, and IPv6, it's usually possible to establish a P2P connection between 2 endpoints. A game could use a hybrid client/server and P2P model, with the option to run entirely P2P while accepting its limitations.

pjmlp 5mo ago

Because they cannot profit from it hence why. Centralised servers allow for subscriptions and other stuff.

account42 5mo ago
Subscriptions are so last decade, it's all about microtransactions now. Not that this changes the motivations for having centralized servers.