Pwngamer.com says: Homefront has been out for a little more than a day now and already its servers have hit maximum capacity. Those players lucky enough to connect on a local server will experience a lag-free match as expected. However...
this game looks really good, add me on psn:flamesofhell44
This happens with every online shooter and has done for a while, how could they not see it coming?
@ Bumnut I agree that it is rather annoying but like I was saying its not that simple. How they set up there servers depends greatly on the number of users, also depends on where those users are and so on. This is true for any game, if they knew day one how many users would be online and where then it would not be an issue. When it comes to mass networking its really just a system of guess and check till you get it right and running stable. It gets more complex when you talk about different ISPs and network security.
Not so simple as that. I won't go to deep in to it but for the most part it is better to add servers to meet demand then take down servers to meet it. Putting them up then just taking them down is not very cost effective. I don't think it is to much to ask for gamers to wait a day or so. I personally after the other day have not had any issues, with getting matches or lag. Sounds like it is more of a remote issue for some users.
I can see your point but I don't think it is too much to ask for a game to work properly on release. It is getting to the point now where it is barley worth purchasing a game until it has been out for a week.
The online is very good, the core gameplay is very fun and the battle commander and battle points really set this game apart from other shooters. We got in some very epic chopper fights where we had 4-5 choppers all fighting each other and air drones as well buzzing around. Not going to find that kind of stuff in any other game. Only thing I'd like to see is for them to add more weapons and airstrikes down the road. It looks like it is set up for that but only time will tell.
Multiplayer does not even work properly dedicated servers there is no need for this since internet speed has increased since 2002. If we were able to host ourselves it would also resolve a lot of lag problems with people from abroad. Why do we put up with games that are being released without a proper testing. And what is the deal nowadays with the run and gun playstyle. Whatever happend to matches of Siege Ghost Recon style
Are you high? There is a massive difference between P2P and dedicated servers in games, especially shooters. Even if the host and all the players have 50mbps connections, all of that doesn't even matter if the host has horrid ping and/or packet loss; everyone will still be teleporting around the map. And don't even get me started on instances when the host leaves. Having dedicated servers allows the dev to patch things as they see fit anytime, allows freedom for players to join/leave without interruption, allows for a higher player count and large map areas with plenty of stability, and best of all, LESS LAG.
If the host and all players have a *proper* 50mbps connection, there shouldn't be any ping/packet loss problems - unless some of the players are really far away from each other . But if they are all far away, then they will also get high pings with dedicated servers. This is simply a physical limitation that you can not resolve (speed-of-light/distance). And there is even one advantage to P2P: if for example me and my friends all live in the same city, we should get a good ping on P2P because we live relatively close to each other. But if on the other hand the traffic has to go through a server located in another city (not to mention another country), we will experience a higher ping - again due to physical limitation. So there is no simple winner between Server/P2P gaming. There are two many variables to consider.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.