Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
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.
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
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.
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
I would have expected studios to use a 3rd party system back then. GameSpy was huge in that era to cover that functionality.