White Knight Chronicles buckling under server meltdowns

Japanese owners of White Knight Chronicles are reporting that getting online is almost impossible.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
TOO PAWNED3637d ago

Japanese want to play online? What is next, snow in California?

Max Power3637d ago

snow last week in Malibu and Las Vegas

Ju3637d ago

I'd just wana say, we enjoyed the Snow in Las Vegas last week very much (well, the kids, not everyone :)

TheIneffableBob3637d ago

Well, it actually did snow here in California in unlikely places recently.

Rock Bottom3637d ago

That what you get when you release a game with an online option without a beta.

INehalemEXI3637d ago

yup, snowed in nor cal in some places by where Im at.

cherrypie3637d ago

That is why Famistu gave White Knight Chronicles the LOWEST score of ANY JRPG thusfar this generation.

Said that the online play was broken. And the game was severly technically flawed.

Every JPRG released this generation has a higher score than WKC from Famitsu. BD, LO, ToV, ToV, TB(ES), IU -- ALL OF THEM -- got a better review from Famitsu than White Knight Chronicles -- it got 29/40 from Famitsu.

Mozilla893637d ago

And Haze got a great score so your point is? WKC sold better on day 1 than a lot of those next gen JRPG's did in a week. I don't think the Japanese have a lot of experience with the whole online thing. I mean look at MGO that was handled terribly.

vhero3636d ago

Still this game is the birth of PS3 in Japan it is the new "Final Fantasy" since S-E have ruined FF. To knock points off a review though for that is lame no way could they have known it was gonna be that big and sell out on launch day! This game is gonna PWN in 2009 finally a decent nex-gen JRPG and about damn time! All 360 and ps3 JRPG's until now have sucked especially the S-E ones who seem to not care anymore about anything... Taking 4 years to make a game is pathetic especially as its probably gonna suck..

SonyOwnsNextYear3636d ago

Far east loves sony. have they done this to microsofts servers?

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 3636d ago
shadowfox3637d ago

Why does every Sony game seem to have server problems at launch? LBP, Socom, and now White Knight. All great games, and dedicated servers kick ass, but Sony needs to work on this before Killzone 2 hits, because if 100,000 WKC owners gives Sony issues, then the half a million KZ2 owners definitely will.

TOO PAWNED3637d ago

They probably wanted to release WKC on 25th. so maybe it was rushed. dunno what else could be

PirateThom3637d ago

Honestly, I think Sony underestimates the popularity of the games so don't dedicate enough bandwidth to them.

Maybe they'll learn by Killzone 2, but don't bet on it, await a week or two of server issues and articles proclaiming the end of the PS3 and how Killzone 2 didn't deliver.

GrandTheftZamboni3637d ago

Is it Sony's or developer's responsibility?

PotNoodle3637d ago

Killzone 2 worked amazingly well, i mean i could join a server in japan and get zero lag at all. Over those few weeks of the beta i didn't encounter any lag.

When you create a server it is hosted on their own servers, anything upto 32 players. You have complete control over the servers you create, password protect them, set game types, rules, etc etc.

I mean it could all just die on release day but from what i saw the game is very solid online and they have said many times they have been working on the online since the start and have had it up and running for a good few years now constantly improving the netcode.

DJ3637d ago

And I'm getting pretty fed up with it. You'd think they'd at least build the capacity for every copy that's put on shelves within the first week.

interrergator3637d ago


were there any framerate problems or anything i dont have the beta

PotNoodle3636d ago

Was at a certain part on a map, it doesn't matter what was going on there, there could be only 1 person on the server and it still happened when i ran past it so it was obviously just a glitch.

But other than that, no - the framerate stayed solid, or at least a certain mark where i didn't notice the drop.

interrergator3636d ago

@deathrow hm hopefully no problems with anything like the lag for final version

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 3636d ago
TOO PAWNED3637d ago

BTW game sold 135k on day one, that IS OFFICIAL. So at least 200k first week, which is great. But stuff like this sounds lame, sony should be fast to fix it.

Ju3637d ago (Edited 3637d ago )

And usually they are. We had other games where this happened. Usually within 1-2 days, most of the issues where fixed.

If you don't do 100K load tests in advance, this is always guesswork. And needs some adjustments as soon you hit real world load in the 100ks.

pwnsause3637d ago

well its both a surprise and not a surprise to me at the same time.

Its not a Surprise that this happens since this is the first week since the game launched in Japan. and thats a good thing, cause it means the online mode sounds as if its pretty addicting.

Now its a Surprise because its the Japanese playing online games. Didn't the media say that Japanese online gaming inst as popular as Western online gaming? I mean just look at the arcade business over there, its still popular over there. This game is getting them to play online, which is a big deal.

gameraxis3637d ago

i'd splurge on the servers, always have too much, all that money saved from minimal marketing, spend it on servers!!! this is just starting to get on my nerves as a ps3 fan...

and i don't get it... cod4 ran BEAUTIFULLY, R1 ran BEAUTIFULLY... i wish i had a voice loud enough to reach sony's doors

edhe3637d ago

The more popular the psn becomes the more widespread this problem will become.

If you get 30m people on the service and it has to provide game servers as well as everything else and there's a sudden shift in the demographic (new game, dlc or real-world event) then because its a bespoke architecture it'll strain badly.

p2p isn't ideal for ingame performance [considering the variablity of people's broadband and networking hardware setup], but at least it's dynamic, and on MS's side their centralisation's only based around leaderboard & matchmaking protocols which makes it a lot more flexible.

e.g. say killzone 2 launched and immediately hit 2m people playing on day one, you think a dedicated server setup would work for that? you'd need hundreds of thousands of instances over thousands of dedicated hardware units. If 2m people sign into halo then it'll work fine on anything not match-made, and recently would probably be acceptable on matchmaking.

Trade-offs: instant performance or durability? Paying customers want both, free players should expect neither?

This is why the pay-off of performance for the dedicated servers of the PSN will soon feel like an old memory when the overall bandwidth of players pushes the developers/sony to find out a way of having more servers & bandwidth without charging people for the privilege.

Also, what happens in 8 years time? Servers all go offline and no more gaming? P2P puts that in the hands of the gamers.

Neither setup is ideal.

thor3637d ago

edhe I think you're wrong here. The PSN I don't think has EVER buckled under the load of users. For example, when Home launched there were disconnects everywhere, but not to PSN, it was localised in Home. It's the specific servers for WKC.

The game's just launched - I am going to explain this simply.

Let's say your game sells 1 million copies.
In the first week, 500,000 people play it online.
In the second week, 300,000 people play it online.
The number of players drops down from that initial week, until you're left with maybe 100,000 regular players.
Now your problem, as Sony, is to decide in advance how many servers you're going to need. Let's say you predicted these figures.
Do you get enough servers to cope with 500,000 players, or 100,000 players? Getting enough servers to cope with 500,000 would be unnecessary past the first week, a waste of money. So you simply get enough servers to cope with, say, 150,000 people and then you'll have some problems at launch. But after that initial launch period, the game will run smoothly for all and you've only spent a fraction of the cost on servers.

Even P2P games like Gears 2 need matchmaking servers and will suffer from the same problem I described. When we talk about dedicated servers we simply mean the individual games we connect to - e.g. the blue rooms in Warhawk. I don't have to go on a dedicated server in Warhawk but I still must connect to their servers that handle the lobby etc. - and when I connect to a dedicated server it's not affected by anyone else apart from those in the game, because the dedicated server is just a PS3 connected up to the internet.

edhe3637d ago

"Do you get enough servers to cope with 500,000 players, or 100,000 players? Getting enough servers to cope with 500,000 would be unnecessary past the first week, a waste of money."
I'm sure customers would love that approach.

You just made my point though, you do that toss up for bandwidth on that system, or you go p2p and cope with anything [theoretically].

Shame it doesn't work like torrenting - the more the better ;)

Show all comments (65)
The story is too old to be commented.