So I know that dedicated servers will only be available for the PC however do you think this will bring up problems on the other consoles?!? Id hate to see lag issues in brink

depends on how well SD did on their net-coding.

How about their old games how did they hold up on the lag issues?

SD has got alot of experience with MP games, i think we have little to worry about

Their old games ran (and still run) pretty smoothly P2P - except the console versions of ETQW...

But they can disown them safely enough, the console ports were a 3rd-party job, not ACTUALLY made by SD - this time they've clearly said they're doing the console versions themselves because they saw how #*$& a job outsourcing produced last time.

We should be fine. I've pre-ordered on PS3 by the way, so I'm confident enough to put money behind it pre-release.

The best netcode in the world won't make up for someone's horrible connection the are stealing from the taco truck parked next to their house. And god help us all in game if they are selected as host. I'll be on a 360, at least you PC guys will get some kind of server browser. I'll just be stuck with matchmaking.

Confirmed host migration says this won't be such a problem...

No instead you'll get a five minute pause while the game connects you to another dodgy 360/PS3 in some other distant corner of the world, i wish people would stop defending p2p it doesn't work regadless of netcode or host migration...the game will lag, this i promise!

The beauty of Brink is that should this be the case (like which happens in COD all the time) I can just go offline or connect to a friend(s) game and play some relatively lag free co-op.

Ehm in p2p if someone is laggy it will affect the peer who brings the lag/poor connection, not the other peers. Only way this would be a problem is if a majority of the peers had poor connection, which really never is the case in mp games these days.

You seem to be under the impression that p2p still means its hosted by A player, Its not. Its hosted by all the players, so if one "host" fails, the other 15 might very well deliver.

If you want to speak of games with bad netcode, you should look at borderlands, ugh even now when I try to play it online its a bad joke

But like people have said, SD has experience with this, also Its not like theyr making a 64 v 64 game, alot less is required with 8v8

Richard Ham himself is a console player(360)...I am fairly sure he would make sure the net-coding is done well for his own play format. Shouldn't be a concern but you can never truly know until the game comes out.

They had other console games beside ETQW?

The problem remains, irriguardless of how p2p works, if your going to create a stunning multiplayer experience for your customers then your (console) shooter should field dedicated servers, p2p will not cut it regardless of how brilliant the netcode is.

I guarantee i will be back here after release saying......"i told you so!"

What the hell are you talking about? p2p has worked extremly well on consoles so far, and that on games that generally have more players, And/or bigger enviroments.

And I guarantee that its more likely you'll be back here on launch day because of your own IP, not the games lack of dedicated server. And If its really that bloody important to you, then get the game for PC instead of a console.

No, but it's possible to play Wolf and QW outside the usual PC dedicated server model with a player host, which is P2P.

And Elfishgene, if you'd seen how well Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood played all the way through from the beta up until the pre-Da Vinci Disappearance patch (hasn't been the same since), or if you'd played Transformers: War for Cybertron before the map packs killed it...

NEITHER of which have dedicated servers OR host migration... (and both of which would have benefited greatly from host migration, I might add)

You'd have seen two games which almost totally put the lie to any claims that p2p is unsupportable.

Did they have their laggy games? Yes, but so does Resistance: Fall of Man while playing 8 player on dedicated servers meant to hold up to 40 players. Were they perfect? No, but again, neither are games with dedicated servers.

If you're so insistent that a game can't do well without them on console, that's your loss. Stick to playing Homefront. We'll cheer you on (sarcastically, of course, but we'll still be there).

And Munx, MOST P2P games DO designate one player as host. I'm HOPING that Brink is an exception to this, and has decentralised communication between players, because that's the best way to implement p2p. It reduces lag, and results in host migration being a non-invasive process. Because even in a decentralised game network, there will be a designated host to track the relative positions of players who AREN'T in close proximity to one another, while direct communication can occur between players who are gathered together.

I game on PC and on console, and I lag on both at times, so elf, unless NOT A SINGLE PC player EVER has LAG, your point is invalid ( I also have a :flamethrower: )

Well arent you the cheerful one? <_<

;3

There is going to be lag. End of story. It happens. Even host migration can't stop all lag. The thing to due is make sure lag is not a problem, and you do everything possible to reduce it so that its rare and not a problem. Hopefully SD can do that.

Well I know I sure as [censored] am going to lag. Unless you live in the middle of nowhere or 15 years in the past, I'm sure you'll have nothing to worry about.