If Brink's multiplayer uses P2P...

(SuperWaz) #1

While we wait for any information on how the PC multiplayer connectivity works (yes, I know - we will get the information when they are ready to tell us), servers, P2P or otherwise, I am just wondering how important is this aspect of the game to you?

We know that there are apparently PC dedicated servers, though we know nothing about the flavours of the files or anything else.

We also know that Brink “bridges the gap between single player and multiplayer” and provides a “seamless” experience. Again though we don’t know exactly how this works.

So if, say for example, this is implemented in the same way as the console versions and a P2P system is the method of connectivity, just how much of a dealbreaker is this to you?

I would also like to know, from your experience of PC gaming, just how you think this connectivity will work.

For example, if you’re playing a single player game and your friend wants to join it, just what’s going to go on with regards to the server/host etc.

I’m interested to hear your opinions, please.

(Diablo85) #2

After the MW 2 fiasco on the PC (cheaters heaven because there are no server admins) it will be a deal breaker for me.

(DarkangelUK) #3

If anything would be P2P it would be the coop part… are you gonna invite random strangers who could be cheaters to your coop game? I would also assume, as host, that you have some influence over who stays and who goes. MW2 is completely different where everything was P2P, so cheaters could run rife, with Brink the MP (human vs human) will be on the dedicated servers more than likely. Seems you just saw P2P and did an instant comparison to the one PC game that used it a couple of years ago almost.

(Diablo85) #4

Have you read his first post?

So if, say for example, this is implemented in the same way as the console versions and a P2P system is the method of connectivity, just how much of a dealbreaker is this to you?

That sounds like the exact same system as MW 2 has. If it’s only for coop thats no problem for me. But I think the thread starter was not just talking about that.

(riptide) #5

Agreed.

For me it’s not a deal breaker at all because from a logistics standpoint it’s impossible for them to make every game mode on dedicated servers without providing the servers for us… which would mean pay to play.

(DarkangelUK) #6

[QUOTE=Diablo85;284175]
That sounds like the exact same system as MW 2 has. If it’s only for coop thats no problem for me. But I think the thread starter was not just talking about that.[/QUOTE]

But we know it isn’t, so there was no point in even humouring the sentence.

(riptide) #7

Yea… I didn’t even think to take it any other way.

(nincek) #8

I think I am the only one here that remembers when one of the developers discussed the Server Browser?

(riptide) #9

Unlikely, but I personally don’t recall seeing it. Was it an article or video? A link would work too… I’m interested.

(Nail) #10

Server browser = PC = Steam

(riptide) #11

Well yea… but I was hoping for a bit more than that… :stuck_out_tongue:

(SuperWaz) #12

I’ve not seen that. Was it long ago?

(LyndonL) #13

It was ages ago, and I think it was mentioned by Rahdo in the crossfire posts.

(Cankor) #14

So, to answer the actual question, no it’s not a dealbreaker because you’re going to play campaign mode maybe once each side and then it will be 100% free play. If it is P2P in campaign mode and it ends up being a classic console experience (where apparently the a$$holes have ruined it for everyone) then I’d just play that bit single player once to see all the cut scenes and return to playing on a well admined server where you are held accountable for your behaviour.

Seems like a lot of work to develop a P2P system for the PC that won’t get used after the first 3 months of the games release though, I understand why it’s a question, but really don’t expect it to be implemented like that. More likley they will have GSP’s providing their own servers for campaign mode and it drops you into one whenever a friend wants to join your game. Again, the need for a bunch of them will drop off rapidly, so it’s a short term commitment for lots of servers.

(Humate) #15

[QUOTE=Cankor;284410] If it is P2P in campaign mode and it ends up being a classic console experience (where apparently the a$$holes have ruined it for everyone) then I’d just play that bit single player once to see all the cut scenes and return to playing on a well admined server where you are held accountable for your behaviour.

[/QUOTE]

IRL LOL :infiltrator:

(riptide) #16

[QUOTE=Cankor;284410]So, to answer the actual question, no it’s not a dealbreaker because you’re going to play campaign mode maybe once each side and then it will be 100% free play. If it is P2P in campaign mode and it ends up being a classic console experience (where apparently the a$$holes have ruined it for everyone) then I’d just play that bit single player once to see all the cut scenes and return to playing on a well admined server where you are held accountable for your behaviour.

Seems like a lot of work to develop a P2P system for the PC that won’t get used after the first 3 months of the games release though, I understand why it’s a question, but really don’t expect it to be implemented like that. More likley they will have GSP’s providing their own servers for campaign mode and it drops you into one whenever a friend wants to join your game. Again, the need for a bunch of them will drop off rapidly, so it’s a short term commitment for lots of servers.[/QUOTE]

This would be very admirable if they did it that way. But it will definitely hurt their pockets unless they strike some deal where that’s also the only GSP you can rent a server from to cover the losses. Which would be a really shady deal. I still think it will be campaign/coop/versus is P2P and freeplay is dedicated.

(Mustang) #17

Yup, sounds the logical solution to me.

(SuperWaz) #18

That’s what I’m also thinking - P2P for everything other than specific freeplay on dedicated servers. I don’t see any other reason for the void in information.

I don’t have a problem with this as long as:

  1. We’re able to easily configure our own servers and there is alot of scope to do so
  2. It’s cheap for GSPs to run the servers so we don’t have to pay through the nose
  3. It’s easy for us to play on them with our friends/clan mates

It doesn’t change the fact that I feel disappointed that Bethesda and Splash Damage have been deliberately misleading/vague with the information that’s available, and to me this can only mean we’re not going to like what we hear.

I’d love for them to prove me completely wrong and give us some positive information.

Badman, is it time for some information? The stage is yours, sir. Please …

(Herandar) #19

How in the world can near-total silence be deliberatly misleading?? This sort of entitled and skewed world-view only encourages developers & publishers to reveal less information in the immediate and further future.

(Gogeku) #20

If it uses P2P I wont play it.