hey

just registered played this game in London and thought it was amazing, been looking forward to it for AGES! anyway my first question was going to be do they have servers for console but i read in the FAQ that they are only for PC.

so now im left with the question of why this was decided? i always think that servers would improve console games so much more but very few have them. In my opinion the average connection isnt good enough to host a decent game on console.

im still going to get it for 360 but if it turns out fail like most of the recent online games(apart from beloved battlefield ) then i shall switch to PC for the better connection and most likely better community. If you wonder why i chose console first its because of the comfort, i like sitting back with a pad and just flicking the console on, i dunno what it is but i just find gaming on console much more comfortable than PC.

does brink not have dedicated servers for consoles?

nope

"Q: Will there be dedicated servers?
Dedicated servers will be available for Brink on PC. It will be peer-to-peer on Xbox Live and PlayStation Network"

i think because for the most part, dedicated servers can be a huge deal breaker for PC gamers and not as much for consoles. I personally thin P2P works a lot better on consoles than PC, and PC users can better utilize the benefits of ded servers

seems like its pretty common for games that have ded servers on PC to not have them for consoles. I can only assume this its due to Microsoft and Sony being in control of XBL and PSN, or it being difficult to include ded servers in a way that is compatible with XBL or PSN.

Ded servers reduce lag, theres no reason that PCs would get more benefit out of it, consoles are basically computers anyway.

I don't know what actually goes on behind the scenes since most games don't use them, but as for a browser and server list then console gamers aren't used to those things.

Although Gears of War 3 for example is gonna have dedicated servers, but just not a list. People just all go to a server. So I don't know. Cost too much I guess and the most popular games like Halo and Call of Duty don't even use them.

this might have to do with the rumour that some games that did use dedicated servers got negative reactions from consolegamers

really? i dont see whats wrong with them. im pretty sure bf bc2 has them on console? that game is awsome!

halo and cod both had horrible host migration and things because they were using p2p, i dont want the same fate for brink!

maybe it is down to MS and SONY stopping them? i just dont want to go through the whole rage quitting hosts, modding and host migration rubbish again. i love console gaming and would say servers would be an up for console gaming, like the other guy said, they are just computers.

ya the few games on psn with dedicated servers are made by divisions of sony. something i really wish brink has would be custom games and server lists

Dedicated servers are more difficult to run on consoles than on pc. If dedicated servers bring nothing else but just a server browser instead of P2P it only changes the fact that you'll play a lot more with the same people. Besides; pretty much all custom created content from the pc is incompatible with the consoles.

Being a console gamer most games today are on p2p and they don't really care to have dedicated servers unless it's a game where host has a big advantage (Like Gears of War). I've seen the servers work their magic on BF:BC2 but overall if they decided they were going to use p2p it would be very difficult to switch over at this stage of the game.

I'm all in for dedicated servers on consoles because they have their advantages but overall it's easier, and cost less to just do p2p on consoles.

i just think we should be getting into the stage where console games are closer to the same support as PC, i know PC gaming got a massive head start but games have changed so much! so have consoles!

i know PCs will always get advantage of setting up their own servers and stuff or using the SDK stuff to create their own content n what not but i dont see why consoles cant have servers to help improve gameplay. Games have gotten a lot more advanced recently but average internet connection has not gotten much better, i know its probably too late now for servers i just really wish they had done it for both. We'll see what happens though, i guess it depends how well made the game is too. If its like cod or gears2 it wont last longer than couple of weeks in my console, if its more like gears1 or bfbc2 then it will last a very long time

i dont know why its harder for servers on console? or why it would be? other than MS n SONY getting in the way...

Maybe it has something to do with Microsoft not wanting to pay for dedicated servers, thus making the individual companies pay for ded servers over xbl if they want them? Most companies seem to choice p2p because its probably cheaper if it's provided by Microsoft or something. I'm really not sure, but the reason I think ded servers are more expensive is because the game Chromehounds had a dedicated-esque servers rather than purely p2p it seemed, and its the only game I've ever heard of getting completely taken off of xbox live.

are you serious? why on earth would anyone be against dedicated servers

too much trouble i guess, or they don't like having to go through a list to find a game to join.


section 8, there's an article somewhere on the net, on how they tried to get servers+dedicated servers on consoles, they had to use pc's to host those dedicated servers making setting one up a painful slow and hard process, not to mention anyone not having a good pc can't start a dedicated server...


oh and about peer2peer, remember, activision thought it was so popular they tried to port it over to pc aswell. that must mean the consoleplayers loved it no?

No. Activision TRIED to port it over to the PC, your answer is in your question.

i used "tried" as in, they failed miserably and they had to take it away from the next cod if they wanted to keep the cod playing pc-gamers.
mw2 was a big fail...
and BO isn't much difference, more like MW2 with dedi servers and set back a few years..

nah activision trying to make p2p look good is just fail, they just want more money. i cant think why anyone would be against servs, unless they are foolish and know nothing about gaming and latency. As for not wanting to go through a list, they dont have to? dont PC games have an option for a 'quick game' doesnt bfbc2 use servers and no list scrolling. i like to be able to scroll through a list and pick a certain game sometimes, then again sometimes i dont mind a 'quick match' though i tend to find that these 'quick matches' or 'matchmaking' systems are not very good at finding quality games....yes they can do it...but not always...scrolling through a list with latency next to it...you know what you are joining! (in terms of lag n stuff anyway)

then again even if it is p2p i wouldnt mind being able to pick the game from a list either! like gears1, then im not being crammed into a random game!

i would like to see some real figures of how much it sets back the devs to get consoles dedicated servers or even hear a reply from the devs doing BRINK or any other game to why they chose NOT to have them on console.

Generally P2P gives you a game faster than dedicated servers. However this depends on the game. Personally idc if I'm playing p2p or dedicated, I guess it's because I'm used to both.

FYI, BFBC2 I believe was P2P, don't quote me on that though.

most of SD was in to hardcoe pc-gaming, and the rumour that consolegamers dislike servers has been going around for a long time without anything/anyone saying otherwise. and peer2peer is "standard" for console, just like dedi servers are standard for pc. i don't think they put a lot of thought into it

Homefront is also going to have it. I am looking forward to it.



Maybe people can be idiots. Especially in large groups.



See previous answer.

So if section 8 made a splash by actually managing to figure out how to create dedicated servers for a console, then it seems that there is difficulty in actually making it happen, which would be Microsoft's fault. That also means its not anything about image or opinion, but difficulty.

so we come to the conclusion that its down to difficulty because of MS to why consoles dont often have servers? do the guys from Bethesda or SD come on here at all to answer anything?

also in reply to metakn1ght i thought bfbc2 did have servers, EA servers, i have only played EA games that have servers tbh, cant think of another company that has had servers on console, i could be wrong as well though! if i am...then bfbc2 one of the best p2p games ive played.

I think it's simply the setup of a ded-server, which is much easier for PCs than for consoles.

Also, I guess, you had to run a console as a ded-server for consoles. But that's absolutely not what the consoles are made for and/or capable of.

isnt leaving a console running the same as leaving a PC running? as long as they both have some room to breathe they shouldnt have a problem?

or do you mean the way the software n stuff runs on a console that it isnt designed to set up a server very easily?