Anonymous edits have been disabled on the wiki. If you want to contribute please login or create an account.
Warning for game developers: PCGamingWiki staff members will only ever reach out to you using the official press@pcgamingwiki.com mail address.
Be aware of scammers claiming to be representatives or affiliates of PCGamingWiki who promise a PCGW page for a game key.
Not editable
Content is available under Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike unless otherwise noted.
»When creating a new multiplayer game in-game, check for an option along the lines of "Dedicated" or "Dedicated Server". If a game does not come with dedicated server support, set the field to "true".«
That sounds more like self-hosting, rather than P2P.
... Yeah... We've had multiple discussions regarding the current connection types and their phrasing over the last few years due to their issues, as there's multiple ones.
The core of the problem with that whole section is that it convolutes multiple different related but not identical subject matters into a single table:
Every time we discuss the matter we sorta fail to properly arrive to a good potential solution on how to properly separate and remove all ambiguity present in the problematic rows while both retaining rows appropriate for the 90s and early 00s as well as later games where many features were removed and new ones was introduced.
Here's a possible example I threw together just now of a possible reword of the whole thing:
The above example isn't perfect, but is a draft thrown together to attempt to separate and remove the ambiguity of the current rows, and treat them separately.
For example, "listen server" is a term from the 90s and early 00s where it was used in a solely client/server network topology, with the player acting as the listen server being a full on replacement of an otherwise dedicated server. However this form of hosting option is technically also applicable today in peer-to-peer topologies, where multiple listen servers peering with one another is supposedly able to removes disadvantages of the typical peer-to-peer topology. A combination of listen server + peer-to-peer would create what is apparently called listen-peer.
Got work, so this is as much as I've had time to write. Ciao~
Oh, I was not aware of that iceberg. I did not want to trigger bad memories or start a new discussion. I rather thought, someone made a minor mistake, pasting the text meant for self-hosting in the wrong field.
Well, at least I can confirm, that it is indeed not very clear.
Lmao, I did sorta completely miss responding to your actual question, didn't I?!
The reason why the current phrasing is as it is for the P2P row is probably due to its prevalence in modern games since circa 2007 or so. If a game did not have a dedicated server option, it was basically guaranteed to make use of a P2P network topology between players.
But upon re-reading the actual phrasing, I see what you mean -- what game actually exposes a "dedicated" option through their in-game multiplayer options? Basically none does; dedicated options are almost always entirely separate external tools/server software that doesn't require starting and navigating the in-game multiplayer options.
I am not actually sure how to best rephrase it either. The actual proper way of determining if a game is P2P or not would be to disable all form of VoIP functionality of the game, boot into a multiplayer game, and then inspect the type of connections established by the game through e.g. Resource Monitor of Windows, and whether those connections are to residential IP addresses or corporate addresses.
But that approach also isn't guaranteed any longer! After the use of DDoSing and similar attacks between players of a multiplayer match in P2P connection setups to gain an unfair advantage over another player, more and more multiplayer platforms provides player anonymity and network routing through their own infrastructure. Instead of the package being sent directly from player to player in a modern P2P topology, it instead gets sent to a relay/edge of the online platform provider, and then after the package have entered their infrastructure it gets routed to the closes relay/edge to the other player.
What that means is that instead of player <-> player, the P2P network connectivity becomes player <-> platform <-> player. This approach not only ensures anonymity through hiding players' own private IP addresses (and therefor prevents effective DDoSing and such malicious techniques) but can also in some cases lower network latency between players as traffic gets sent through dedicated (to the platform provider) channels worldwide as opposed to being sent across the "public" internet.
Having player-to-player traffic sent across the "public" internet subject the network packets to the whims of all random ISPs between the two players which can cause the traffic to be routed waaaaaay off occasionally if it ends up being cheaper for an ISP somewhere between the players to offload the traffic to an ISP further away than one that happened to be closer.
Riot Games uses such a modern approach for their games nowadays and Steam implemented it as an optional features for game devs a year or so back. I believe Ubisoft also implemented a similar approach in For Honor a few years back.
So basically... P2P nowadays is a hassle and a half to determine...
I would have suggested to look at the ping. If the "hoster" has 0, then it is selfhosting. If both have a notable ping, it is P2P. Or dedicated, but in that case, they are aware of joining a server (except maybe via matchmaking).
Thank you for your long answers and explanations!
»what game actually exposes a "dedicated" option through their in-game multiplayer options?«
Killing Floor, I believe.