• ndguardian@lemmy.studio
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Personally I’m more surprised that most online PC gaming doesn’t cost. As someone who runs cloud infrastructure for a living, servers aren’t cheap. So when it comes to game servers, who is paying for them?

    This isn’t a jab at your comment, rather I’m genuinely curious.

    • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      I feel like this is a lot less in vogue lately but in the 360 era it was common to have one player designated as the host. I remember the host would have an advantage with the shotgun in Gears of War. Nowadays I think server cost is factored into the development costs of multiplayer games.

      • JawnDoh@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Even back when the lobbies were p2p there was still infrastructure on the developer side to handle the matchmaking, stats and progression. I’m sure the load is much less but the multiplayer experience isn’t as good. It would also be pretty demanding for some games that have huge lobbies like battlefield

        • vacuumpizzasA
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          I would have expected studios to use a 3rd party system back then. GameSpy was huge in that era to cover that functionality.

    • MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      From my experience, a lot of pc games operate on a microtransaction model of revenue. Love em or hate em, those lootboxes are paying for the servers everyone else gets to access for free