An explanation of what is going on with Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare's dedicated servers.
Someone made a point just how ridiculous this is. Battlefield 4 used dedicated servers... last gen. And this is EA. So, why in the world would they not have full dedicated servers on their flagship game? How can they be that cheap when this game has basically been their bread and butter for nearly a decade now?
Did you read the article? Allegedly, its a hybrid system. Dedicated when available/close enough, otherwise, peer to peer. Also, a game like COD requires WAY more servers than a game like BF4. BF4's player per server count is 64. COD's player count is 16. You would need 4x as many servers hosting the game as BF4 to ensure every game has a dedicated server. Not just that, but COD's sales numbers are always WAY more than BF4. Youd likely need 8x the amount of servers. Also, something to think about, theres still tons of lag in BF4 (ive spent a few hundred hours playing it) regardless of the dedicated servers. It feels to me that my connection is generally better in COD. So far, just 1 time did I wind up in a server with obvious amounts of lag. I just disconnected and searched for a new match. Problem fixed.
Lol they make millions off ________ every year.I think they can afford.But hey as long as you people keep buying it why even bother right?
You don't need 1 server per hosted game... The resource requirement for a single 64 player bf4 game is probably heavier than 4 16 player COD games, because bf4 is also a lot more technically sophisticated.
Lol man you are spewing a ton of nonsense...
I believe Activision used the hybrid host format with Ghosts. Initially game connections were ok but 3 months down the line and the connections felt quite different with latency issues and a jump in host disconnects, drops suggesting that Activision start cutting the dedicated servers a few months after launch. The issue of making sure there are enough servers is rather a simple one that was solved on the PC many years ago, gamers, clans can have the option to rent a server or seat. Works fine on console versions of BF 3 and 4 so why not for all popular online games. It also has the benefit of the gamer choosing where to play.
You work for Activision?
"The_KELRaTH + 9m ago I believe Activision used the hybrid host format with Ghosts. Initially game connections were ok but 3 months down the line and the connections felt quite different with latency issues and a jump in host disconnects, drops suggesting that Activision start cutting the dedicated servers a few months after launch." This is exactly what I believe they did with Ghosts. They start with hybrid, then slowly drop all dedicated servers. If you play Ghosts on PS4 now, it's vastly different from last year or the beginning of this year. It's back to the usual nonstop host migrations and dropped games, with horrible lag inbetween. People need to just stop supporting this horrible money-grubbing company.
Volkama: "The resource requirement for a single 64 player bf4 game is probably heavier than 4 16 player COD games, because bf4 is also a lot more technically sophisticated." It is very hard to say, but you could say that 64 players sharing one world means one consolidated calculation can be shared by more users, so it would be less intensive than say 4 of 16 player games. However, there are just too many variables and without actual inspection into the system it would almost be impossible to tell. Variations can be anything from amount of physics calculations, how sensitive game calulcations are, size of maps, and so on. That said, Activision's statement isn't very clear at all. They are saying "game servers hosted at data centers", but they are purposefully not using the word "dedicated" which means those game servers can be used for a lot of different things as long as it is "game" related. Anything from matchmaking, recording your score, setting up the maps and so on could be considered game server. The term "dedicated game server" is very specific and "game server" is not in my experience.
Everything I've ever known about their hybrid system is this.. They use dedicated servers for match making then assigns a listen server (some dudes ps4 or Xbox) from there.. You never actually play on a dedicated server.
calm down guys, I was trying to explain what the article was trying to say(whether or not they're actually right, remains to be seen). Again, read the article. Apply logic.
so they could have one server to justify this article.
If that's the case why couldn't they talk about the dedicated servers before?
I feel like this was the long way around a short answer they didn't want to reveal. I've seen some really good connections and some really bad ones so far on PS4. This "hybrid" system is probably dedicated at first then switched to Peer to Peer. Hybrid till the sales show up, then peer to freaking peer. Sorry, I'm hating on the game because it's Call of Duty. I bought it, I hated it, and bought it again. Don't lie, you did too. The game is great so far but the connection....man it can be frustrating at times. Just can't wait till next week (Far Cry and GTA, forget COD)
I hate it too! Same old COD issues. Hit detection, Lag from P vs P and Client side servers.
what about the Xbox One version? I thought every game was on dedicated servers by default?
That's what fanboys want you to believe but yes developers have access to MICROSOFT's servers if they choose.
So basically it does but only to hold information and we were to cheap and greedy to actually allow a developer to make the game good and avoid the same problems the game has been with for 8 years...
In the end, does it matters if it's using dedicated servers or not, when it's lagging to hell and back anyways?
Yeah, if it was all peer to peer and actually worked really well it wouldn't be a problem. If it had servers but they were a bit rubbish (hi bf4 and destiny!) it wouldn't be ideal either, but at least it would feel like they tried :-/
The same hybrid bs line they tried to use to calm playstation and pc fans when they were saying ghosts would use dedicated servers only on xbox. It's peer to peer. It shouldn't be. Sort it, or I'll just stick to Halo and Titanfall for now.
Titanfall has amazing servers. The former IW team got it right!
when a host leaves the game should continue on, that's the advantage of dedicated servers. it also rules out host advantages but the real benefit is it doesn't matter what kind of connection the host has in dedicated server fashion. problems happen when the host has limited upload and cannot handle all the players so therefore everyone gets lag. call of duty needs to move forward and get away from the 16 player cap which is obviously used as a threshold for most peoples connections.
Whatever happened to games just working at launch. Why do customers have to buy games at full price while the developers gradually figure it out. Is that too much to ask?
Because video games have become so complex to a point where having a team of QA testers can not compare to the amount of people simultaneously playing the game and finding bugs. Hence the existence of patches.
Because we the consumer said it was okay to release buggy and broken games and have them semi fixed after launch by buying the product. It's a blessing that devs can put out patches for games but it's a huge curse as well more harm than good has come from it.
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.