Steamをインストール
ログイン
|
言語
简体中文（簡体字中国語）
繁體中文（繁体字中国語）
한국어 (韓国語)
ไทย (タイ語)
български (ブルガリア語)
Čeština（チェコ語）
Dansk (デンマーク語)
Deutsch (ドイツ語)
English (英語)
Español - España (スペイン語 - スペイン)
Español - Latinoamérica (スペイン語 - ラテンアメリカ)
Ελληνικά (ギリシャ語)
Français (フランス語)
Italiano (イタリア語)
Bahasa Indonesia（インドネシア語）
Magyar（ハンガリー語）
Nederlands (オランダ語)
Norsk (ノルウェー語)
Polski (ポーランド語)
Português（ポルトガル語－ポルトガル）
Português - Brasil (ポルトガル語 - ブラジル)
Română（ルーマニア語）
Русский (ロシア語)
Suomi (フィンランド語)
Svenska (スウェーデン語)
Türkçe (トルコ語)
Tiếng Việt (ベトナム語)
Українська (ウクライナ語)
翻訳の問題を報告
ルールとガイドライン
この投稿を報告する
Look at the number of active players in Elden Ring. Now go back and check Dark Souls Remastered, Dark Souls 2, etc... even before the servers went down we saw numbers between 1200 and 5000 on the regular. Now we see over 300,000 in Elden Ring right now. It's the new hot ticket item.
At the end of the the day From Software is a business. When ♥♥♥♥ goes wrong they have to make the best business decision. Getting Elden Ring optimized, secure, with raytraced lighting and such all turned on is critical right NOW. There are people who won't buy the game if they don't keep hammering those out RIGHT NOW.
Past souls games have already made their money. Getting the servers back online will mostly benefit a few thousand fans at any given minute, and for few new dollars. Maybe not even enough to cover the man hours back porting the networking code changes to every older game, which then has to be recompiled, tested, and redeployed.
They will get to the older games, but with so few players actually using them the online component the fix will come AFTER they've finished polishing Elden Ring, which still needs some major optimization, and previously announced features aren't even enabled yet, meaning every coder on staff is probably already dedicated to THAT.
The Divine Nine will make it happen one day, you'll see!
I believe Valve did that for new owerns of the game.
My gripe was that From/B-N did n't put text atop the page stating that servers are down to fix an issue and have an unknown eta.
I don't believe it shouldn't be peer-to-peer any longer, not with their track record, not with their experience. The only agreed way to create the most secure experience for players is a server-client where the server does everything the client only sends the input to the server and receives instructions from the server of what's going on, nothing more.
Maybe I'm wrong and they are capable of creating a secure peer-to-peer system for millions of players that's directed by the servers. In that case I'm sure they wouldn't object to having several 3rd party companies run audits on their code.
Fromsoftware is in dire need of expanding. They simply need more hands on deck, especially with the amount of fans Elden Ring brought in.
If you picture what I said about the code. It's probably extremely difficult with their ten years of code all depending on their netcode. Their pushing it under the rug got them here. It's understandable, a studio's job is to create a fun game for the most amount of people. A public company's goal is to maximize profits. Yet if they want to be respected, they can't let their flagship die, people wouldn't touch DS4 or might strike if this isn't fixed.
They also can't let what happened again, and it seems like it could with the couple of exploits already discovered, or maybe those exploits couldn't evolve into what happened. Only they would know, sadly I don't trust that they know, which is why I mentioned auditors.
There's also another exploit to crash anothers game. That's because of bad netcode. Imagine that being put on the server as is and the server being crashed instead. Remember FO76 and can you imagine the Creation Engine being used there and the amount of bugs that game always had, then having those same devs creating the multiplayer for that game. Yea, hackers took down their servers sort-of how I explained it.
But server-client isn't unflawed. peer-to-peer has minimal latency, but you're depending that the dev created secure netcode and is monitoring things after the fact. server-client at least tells the gamer, ok we will assume responsibility here. it doesn't guarantee the player is secure, but it does say to the gamer that the company is at least willing to put themselves at the same risk that we do when playing their game.
to me. if they keep it peer-to-peer, it won't work. it's got to be server-client. plus they do that, that'd be one less thing keeping demon's souls or bloodborne coming to PC, which are like the top 2 games being requested to come to PC. and that could also be one less thing in the way of allowing cross-platform play.
server-client:
so the players location is saved on the server and the gamer's machine, when the player moved they sent input to the server, which verifies that input, updates the location on the server, and sends the new location to the gamer's machine. it can check the position on the gamer's machine with what's on the server to make sure it's not being altered.
peer-to-peer:
to my knowledge, the server as it exists only helps each client find another client. it doesn't restrict or filter the data sent between clients. I believe EAC is doing that. but it's not a long-term solution. it's should just be a temporary fix to get them through this while they fix everything from the ground up.
about as retarded as someone that would pay subscriptions to play online dark souls