We dont need a shared hub, no one cares about that. Lets be honest this multiplayer has had its fair share of issues. It doesnt have to be like this. p2p online co op locally hosted MP seems like the perfect solution. Just like D2. Let us host lobbys so we can group up… I dont see any real downsides…
just use always online and instead of paying for server hosting service pay fo anti cheat? i mean those are not mountains to climb, p2p makes more sense for this.
I know this might seem like an obvious easy option to add. This is gigantic task, on par with the years we spent making multiplayer in the first place. This is not a feasible option. Sorry.
I was just replying to your “no downsides” comment. Everything (within the bounds of physics) is solveable if you’re willing to throw enough money at it, but as Mike said, that doesn’t make it practical. Everything has downsides.
Ease of Setup: P2P multiplayer is often easier for players to set up and join since it doesn’t require dedicated servers. Players can simply host their own games, making it accessible to a broader audience.
Low Latency: P2P connections can result in lower latency compared to server-based multiplayer, as players connect directly to the host’s machine. This can lead to more responsive gameplay.
Reduced Server Costs: P2P setups can be more cost-effective for game developers, especially for smaller studios, as they don’t need to maintain dedicated server infrastructure.
Player Autonomy: Players have more autonomy in a P2P setup. They can host their game sessions, set their own rules, and invite friends or specific players, offering a more personalized gaming experience.
Community Building: P2P setups encourage community building, as players often form connections and organize games with like-minded individuals. It fosters a sense of belonging and shared experiences.
Scalability: P2P setups can be scalable for smaller groups. While not suitable for massive multiplayer experiences, they can work well for smaller-scale co-op or competitive gameplay.
Offline Play: P2P setups can allow for offline play when the host player’s machine is not connected to the internet. This can be useful for players in regions with unreliable internet access.
Direct Interaction: Players in P2P multiplayer can directly communicate and coordinate with each other, potentially enhancing the social aspect of gaming.
No Central Server Dependency: P2P setups are not dependent on a central server, reducing the risk of server downtime or issues affecting gameplay.
Customization: P2P setups can offer greater customization options for game rules and settings, allowing players to tailor their gaming experience to their preferences.
Low Overhead: P2P connections typically have lower network overhead compared to server-based setups, which can be beneficial for players with limited bandwidth or data caps.
Privacy: P2P multiplayer can offer more privacy as players directly connect with friends or specific individuals, reducing exposure to potentially toxic or unwanted interactions.
Modding Support: P2P setups can be more conducive to modding and player-created content, as players have more control over their game instances.
oh I just saw this after I posted. I was under the impression unity offered easy implementable solutions for p2p. Im not a game dev though, and any of my personal know how from unity comes nothing close to the scale of the game, or even at this point in development. Well thanks for response and I know it will improve overtime, anyways.
So I can not play online unless I pay for a good VPN. Not good at all I hope they change this before release or it could be nasty. for now I have to play offline. if not it just kicks me off (
