Hey everybody,

This imo is the most important question for console players, i'm going to assume that the console version will be p2p whilst the pc will get dedicated servers, if this is true, why?

Dedicated servers are essential for this type of game, p2p will not cut it, it will lag, hit detection will be broken, host migration will be a nightmare the problem list is endless, i'm not attacking or trolling here iv'e been waiting for this game since its announcement but after playing the horrors that was Crysis 2 , Halo and CoD multiplayers (on console) i'm a little bit sceptical that this will play any better, console dedicated servers are essential in this day and age (just ask Dice) and something that should be talked about and included from a games inception, if the problem lies with Microsoft then the devs should make it clear from the start what they want from their multiplayer masterpiece.

Brink is a multiplayer game first and foremost and as such deserves to play as well as possible, if timegate can support dedi's for S8 Prejudice then i'm damn sure Bethesda can with Brink, netcode bravado will always be just that bravado as i have yet to see any game supporting p2p work properly......it's 2011 gamers deserve better!

Only ever had significant problems with Transformers: War for Cybertron when the host was *#&$ or my connection to them was. Both situations were rare. The only thing I thought it really needed was host migration (which Brink will have).

If it's done right, P2P works FINE.

Be skeptical, I appreciate where you're coming from, you've played games which didn't run well on a P2P system. I'm fine with Brink being P2P, I won't tell you that you have to be fine with it as well. But I've had experience with it working well, so you can see where I'm coming from as well.

P2P is not the essential problem.
Poor coding is. Hit detection in Bad Company 2 and Modern Warfare 2 is a serious pain in the ..., even though the first has Dedis and the second can be played on dedis. But the hit detection remains a joke.

I'm sorry but i disagree their never has been a p2p system that "works FINE" you are only deluding yourself if you think it does, host migration is a bane not a boon, it interrupts gameplay causes lag and potential game crashes, i can understand why most people get off on supporting p2p coming from a console background you don't have much choice and even if the beta proved to be working fine once it's unleashed onto a wider market the cracks will begin too show.

There simply is no excuse (bar cheapness) why console multiplayer games should not be run on dedicated servers, p2p is an outmoded concept that radically needs changing.

Ya, well, host migration is better than no host migration.
Without it, the game would simply end when the host leaves.

I bet Counterstrike would've worked very well on P2P, because it has excellent network-coding.

Well I WAS showing respect for where you come from. Saying I'm deluding myself when I've provided an example of a game that DID work on P2P is an example of you being rude without good reason.

I also used to play Doom, Quake, Quake 2, Quake 3: Arena, Unreal, Unreal Tournament.
I played Doom on DIAL UP and it ran fine.
Quake and later I mostly played either in LAN games or over BBS systems, but I did play Quake online a few times. P2P on dial up, and it STILL PLAYED DECENTLY.

P2P, when it's done WELL, can work.

Saying otherwise just because you play badly-coded games, is ignorant.

Yes of course it is, but the fact remains that it shouldn't be needed in the first place, there is no such thing as a decently coded netcode regardless of what you are told by the devs., it's really quite simple a game of this calibre (and i'm looking at you as well Crytek) should not be running on p2p, if you have the patience to put up with all the problems inherrent within the p2p system then so be it, for me and thousands of others i'm afraid it's not good enough.

I will be monitoring the game before buying outright and will see how it fairs in reviews and gameplay from my peers.

I rarely ever have problems with p2p or maybe i just don't notice things that other people do OR maybe I am just lucky and have had no bad experiences with p2p just yet.

By telling you you are deluding yourself is not insulting you i'm referring to the fact you are obviously blind too all the problems inherent with p2p, if you believe i was insulting you then i apologise, if your association with p2p is exemplary then good for you, me and millions of others must be living in a different universe, as for ignorant....well, not quite! :wink_smile:

I'm not saying my P2P experience has been exemplary.

But I've had bad experiences with dedicated servers as well. If the netcode's bad enough, even dedicated servers aren't going to make it playable.

Dedicated servers can cover an overcomplicated game with minor flaws in the netcode. They can help a reasonable game that has sloppy netcode. They aren't needed when the netcode is done well, and the game is designed with P2P in mind.

I'm not saying 100% without question that dedicated servers wouldn't make Brink run better. I'm not saying P2P is flawless. I'm not saying I've had perfect experiences with P2P. I'm simply saying that there ARE examples of P2P games that WORK PROPERLY. Just because your personal experiences are with games that were overreaching the limitations they had to work with, or games where the netcode was poorly done, doesn't mean the P2P model doesn't work.

And given that you've apologised for what I mistakenly took as an insult, I'm sorry for calling you ignorant. But you apparently managed to pass up some good multiplayer opportunities in favour of more mainstream titles.

Yep no host migration is really frustrating. Rather have the game interrupted for 10 seconds than ended, gives me a chance to sip my beer.

As much as I like dedicated servers they aren't the be all end all. just look at homefront.

Section 8 prejudice has deds and its a budget title to say the least. There wont be a problem with P2P if it kicks,bars, and or moves sub par connections from hosting. Region lock it if they have to,it always seems like there is that one HPB(old school term) that gets host.That and ARP poisoning is the bane of multi-player matchmaking on consoles the latter rarely ever occurring.

Not every publishers wants to spend money on dedicated servers. You should blame Sony and Microsoft for the lack of dedicated servers in many console games. They won't allowed third parties hosting dedicated servers on their closed networks. Because of that players can't host their own dedicated servers nor rent them like PC gamers can.

Well like i mentioned, i'm going to hold out on a day one purchase till the reports get back to me on how it plays, sooner or later p2p will be consigned to the history books and people will look back and wonder how on earth we all put up with it, gamers are more savvy these days, devs can't and mustn't be allowed to fob us console owners off due to restrictions or price, this game with proper support and no problems could become the console's TF and that would be a beautiful thing, however, something in the back of my mind has me worried......only time will tell.

Just out of interest, don't Demons' Souls and Warhawk used dedicated servers? I had some lag with those in the past.

p2p is one of the reasons I keep going back to PC gaming.

Section 8 is a good example of what can and should be done for consoles. Maybe if Brink takes off, the devs can go back and take a look, but with all the animations and parkour stuff going on, I am a bit worried what the hitboxes will be like in general, let alone in a p2p evirornment.

Also, a good dedicated server fosters a community of regulars without joining a pub clan. Its something I really enjoy in my PC games. I wish more console players cared about this more since its really the one major thing (other than the keyboard and mouse) that makes the console experience disappointing to me.

I prefer dedicated servers over p2p, but as was said before, the problem really lies in coding...I love Bad Company 2, but I don't know how many times I was running from enemies, I rounded a corner, and died due to poor hit detection.

Halo's p2p isn't bad, don't see what your issue with that is, but COD and Crysis 2...well, let's just say they are what they are.

And p2p is clearly not essential, otherwise every game would have them. Dramatic language will not get your argument across.

cough cough. Blops

I don't know for certain on Demon's Souls, but I think so.

Warhawk definitely does though, and I was getting lag more often with that than I did in War for Cybertron.

Resistance: Fall of Man had them too, not certain if it still does, but I had occasional lag issues there too (although it was mostly pretty stable)

ETQW for the 360 back in 2007 was a laggy mess, hope Brink runs smooth.

Dedicated Server bring another quality to the multiplayer a great example is BFBC2 and GOW 3 .

I never lagged with Demon Souls

I have NEVER played a non-laggy P2P game in my life... hell, I had a second's delay on button presses on Borderlands. I was seriously pissed off to discover Brink will be P2P, and depending on how it pans out I may not play online. Unloading 2 clips into a guy just to be melee'd from 10 meters away or shot through a wall is just plain NOT fun. Especially when it happens every second of every game.

With that said, I AM the unbeaten reigning champion of the "worst connection" award on most forums/boards I've visited; I'm confident I could win it here, too.

All I have to say, If you hate P2P THAT MUCH, then buy a better PC and get it for PC. Xbox and PS3 are probably going to have p2p. Ether deal with that, and be happy, or sell your xbox and save up for a new PC.

Thats my opinion at least. Less QQ, moar Pew Pew.