this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2025
401 points (98.5% liked)
Games
34047 readers
923 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Looks like PlayStation’s Auth servers are down among everything else. Even if multiplayer was free, I don’t see how modern games would function without that service running. Who am I playing against? What’s their name? How did I get my account progress?
Just about everything multiplayer nowadays relies on account / Auth services. Especially on console.
Sure, but if it were free it's a "you get what you pay for" situation. People are a lot more forgiving when they aren't personally losing money.
You used to be able to type in an IP address whether or not the official server is running. Sometimes you still can, but seeing as Baldur's Gate 3 has LAN and direct IP connection on PC but not on PlayStation, it sure seems like Sony is asking them to specifically remove the feature if they wanted it in the first place.
Then beyond that, you've got a mismatch behind what your money is actually for. It used to be for paying for their servers, but you often don't even connect to Sony's servers anymore. Plenty of games behind that same paywall have their own servers, like Call of Duty for instance, but Call of Duty's multiplayer is behind the same paywall as Helldivers 2, which is running servers on Sony's dime. And beyond that...the reason multiplayer is free on PC is because your purchases are funding them. The majority of game sales on consoles are now digital, just like Steam, and that is a trend that's accelerating. Meanwhile, the subscription fee compared to free online on PC is probably one of a multitude of reasons that people are leaving consoles for PC.
You're mixing stuff up, the direct connect for multiplayer where you put the IP has nothing to do with authentication that he's talking about. Whenever you open up a multiplayer game it will authenticate yourself with PSN using the account you have on the playstation, then if your authentication succeeded it will authenticate with the game service-servers which will reply with stuff like your progression in the game, whether someone has sent you a message or a friend request, etc. Modern games are a platform in and of themselves, essentially they have an entire Discord on steroids internally which you're using before, during and after playing online matches. If the PSN is down you can't authenticate with those servers... I mean, they could allow you to login using username and password, but that's: 1 not needed since the PSN is almost never down and 2 probably against some TOS from Sony for you to release games on their platform. So if the PSN is down you would not be able to get into the main screen for multiplayer anyways, so there's no place where you could input the IP for the game-server you want to connect to.
I'm not defending the system, but it is what it is, games have organically evolved to have all of these social features which people do use and like, it makes sense that Sony won't allow you to go over them and authenticate directly with the game specific service-servers and it makes sense that if you're relying on all of that for login you also rely on it for matchmaking (which is where the IP would come in place). Could it be better? Sure, but there's no incentive for it to be, PSN is rarely down and games (at least large ones) take forever to be sunset, and by that time there are almost no people playing them anyways.
I'm not mixing anything up. If they allowed for things like direct IP connections, you could still play Baldur's Gate 3, online, regardless of this downtime. It wasn't organically that we arrived here. It's objectively worse.
This is the relevant bit of what you're replying to:
None of that comes from the game-server but rather from the service-server. Even if social games that have those features allowed you to connect to a server directly, you would still need to connect to their servers for all of that stuff.
Direct IP connection has nothing to do with authentication and social flows (e.g. names and progress like the comment you're replying to mentioned) and would not help in the slightest with it.
It would help people who wanted to have a functioning video game. Then you could ask your friend (or someone on Discord) what their IP address is and play with them.
You're again mixing the point, your friends IP doesn't have authentication, progress, chat, etc, etc, etc. You're talking about a different kind of server.
The thing I'm criticizing is that they make this other kind of server impossible, even though it would be exactly the kind of backup plan you'd want for a situation like this one.
But that is an apples to oranges comparison, just because you personally don't care about those features doesn't mean others don't care either. For games without those features mentioned in the original comment (like Baldur's Gate 3) not having join by IP is ridiculous we agree there. But for games that do it's just not feasible, there's too much of what makes the game the game in those features. Don't get me wrong, I personally think that companies should not just kill the game and should provide ways to make their game playable offline after closing the servers, but it's not as simple as allowing you to join by IP for the games being discussed here. What level would your character be? What load out would it have set? Which items would be unblocked? Etc, etc, etc, the servers that control all of that are too engrained into the fabric of the game, and that's something that happened organically because people liked those features and wanted cross-progression, security, etc. Can all of that be removed? Sure but then you're left with a shell of what the game is/was, still I believe companies should make such a release before closing the servers, but again this has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with direct join by IP.
Being able to type in an IP address is a late 90s and early 2000s thing within the AAA space, much as I hate to say that. I do know of at least one unpopular, indie PS4 game that had IP address entry so it wasn’t outright banned then.
I’m pretty sure PlayStation requires games with certain types of multiplayer to authenticate with them as part of the agreement to publish on the platform so that’s restrictive.
However, Sony does provide services that cost something to run, both directly for the studio, and indirectly for players who consume that studio’s game. Not the least of which includes account authentication which is one aspect of ensuring piracy isn’t happening on that platform. Friends services and the ability to join friends helps people jump back into your game. I’m sure there’s more.
It sounds like that requirement is just a bad deal for the consumer. And they charge you for it. And they can't guarantee uptime.
From the consumer’s perspective, at its cheapest, it’s $10/month to play with your friends on PlayStation, be able to claim new games monthly which are good for as long as you are paying the subscription, and have cloud saves (among a few other minor benefits).
No service can guarantee uptime, that’s just the reality of it. This is the largest PSN outage in 14 years. Most outages have not been this long or widespread.
Napkin math shows their uptime to be ~99.5% in the 18 years it’s been operational. Not that good nowadays, but not something you can’t sell to people.
Cloud saves that are free on PC, and they don't block your access to transfer saves without it like consoles do. Playing online on PC is free, and we know exactly how to make it free on consoles, but they're not interested in doing so. No one can guarantee 100% uptime, which is why it's a bad deal to make the subscription for that stuff mandatory instead of allowing things like direct IP connections.
You apparently can transfer saves on PS4/5 offline. For PS4 they can be copied to a USB drive, but more to your point here, the only way to copy PS5 saves around (besides PS+) are to do console backup and restore processes and then during that process say you want to take save games wholesale (and then restore them wholesale). That’s definitely greedy bullshit.
I don’t know what more to say, consoles are walled gardens that consumers pay to be in. Within those walled gardens, the company dictates the rules. There’s plenty of good arguments for using a more open platform like PC. Not the least of which is that PlayStation has had an abysmal console cycle for trying to prove their console is worth purchasing - what with it having basically no exclusives that won’t eventually come to PC, first-party or otherwise.
Less and less as time goes on, is my point, for the reasons we've discussed. Maybe any one or two of those reasons aren't doing it on their own, but in the aggregate, it appears consumers are slowly deciding not to put up with the downsides anymore.
It also helps that consoles are becoming more and more PC-esque and expensive. Consoles were a good alternative because they were cheaper, had exclusive titles, and had the ability to couch game, and usually were just "pop disc in and play". They were also pretty stand-alone devices. My biggest issue with PC gaming prior to really this generation was I cannot stand M+KB, I like sitting back in a chair with a controller. But now, peripherals are more able to operate on multiple platforms, games do cross-platform releases, cross play is more prolific (and cross-saves as of late), and it's easier to switch now and not "lose" your friends. Plus, the cost of consoles anymore are much closer to equivalent PCs now.
Console positives are dwindling, or at least becoming neutral to PC.
Mouse and keyboard hasn't been so much a requirement for the better part of 20 years on PC, but the rest tracks.
No, but I didn't want the headache of multiple peripherals, and when you're 15, it's hard to convince a parent to spring for more expensive options out of convenience lol. There were options, but even still, some games didn't come with native controller support (I built my 1st PC in college in...2013? for ESO, and the controller support was through a mod, and it barely worked at the best of times).
Theyve just gotten so similar in their function, it's increasingly hard to justify a console anymore. Microsoft basically forgoing exclusives now only strengthens it
Nobody's gonna dispute the necessity of some sort of server somewhere in the mix. But does it need to be something like PSN? A central 3rd party service that most games only use because they're forced to?
Walled gardens and all. That’s the cost of doing business on PlayStation. Perhaps we’ll see some pushback from developers to PlayStation that might carve a path for sidestepping PSN services if the developer wants to.
It’s important to note, though, that PSN (and Xbox Live, and Steam) does provide useful services to developers in exchange for that cost of doing business.
Free your mind! There is another way. Video game servers should be open-source, and the games should permit you to choose a custom server. This way, games can survive the bankruptcy of their creators' companies.
I don't disagree completely, but it's not as easy as you think. We're not talking about server in the sense of a headless game client that will coordinate a match, we're talking about a whole infrastructure of micro services and a web of communications and APIs just to get a basic authentication working. Not to mention possibly encrypted hard coded addresses to contact. That being said I 100% agree that before a game is abandoned a plan should be put in place to allow people to keep playing it, even if it's complicated and cumbersome to setup, or even if it's as crude as removing authentication entirely.
This would basically be my reply as well. Companies are in the game to make money, and setting up all this infrastructure, not to mention maintaining it, is NOT cheap.