• pewter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    P2P if it’s free and expected to last.

    If it’s a separate server, I don’t see that as infinitely sustainable for most companies.

    • Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      Hahaha…
      GTA5 is P2P with a central component.
      So if R* kills the servers, your game is done for without modding.

      • Chobbes@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        You need some entry point into a peer-to-peer network in order to make connections with peers. This often takes the form of a central server. In theory you can do have it be a bit more decentralized and have an initial list of peers to try to connect to who can then communicate about other peers, but you still need this initial entry point which is a potential point of failure long term, and I don’t think any games actually do this?

        So… Technically speaking, in order to reliably connect peers most games are going to rely on a central server, which does technically cost some money to run, though it should be much cheaper to host than a proper game server which will actually be running the game and physics and stuff server side. With older games like quake you could easily connect to a server even without the master server (though you wouldn’t be able to use the server browser) and it was not terribly difficult to replace the master server with an alternative one.