Aim Assist on PC and Console
Topic for discussion Do you think that aim assist is fair for PC games without a controller and other platforms that use a controller or a computer with a controller? I think that the controller is...
Forum Discussion
For a different set of reasons, Console players don't want crossplay with PC, either. However, there are real financial benefits i.e. reduced server costs, matchmaking, etc for gaming companies to push crossplay.
So when gaming companies push crossplay because 'it brings the community together', or 'makes it easier to play with friends on different platforms', they are not doing it to make the world a better place. Money talks!
Exactly! And now that we have cross-play, I don't see it ever going away.
Hello, I do not want to separate the platforms.
I do not demand this at all.
I am talking about when the aiming assistant is used and hits you while you are only using the mouse and keyboard.
Before you think from which direction you may have been hit in the head and died.
With the mouse and computer.
First, measure the distances and calculate the decrease in the bullet at long distances. All these calculations must be done.
It is without any problem or calculations from a distance. One hit in the head.
Now your calculations are over.
I am talking about justice and equality in the aiming assistant only.
How is there financial benefits? How is there reduced cost?
Let's say there's 10 servers. Instead of having them all be crossplay, you split them 50/50. I don't see where the cost savings would come into play.
Have any sources for these claims?
It's been discussed on these forums previously that servers only spin up when needed. For example, game start requirement is 12 players. Once 12 players are in the lobby, the server starts, backfills with AI, and new players added. At the end of the game, players are put into a pool and a new server 'instance' or 'container' is spun up. This is also the reason we don't have a server browser, because there are no persistent servers (except in Portal). They use Amazon Web Services to spin up “Instances” on demand.
Now, let's say, DICE split Consoles and PC. Now you need to spin up 2 servers, with a lower start requirement (or nobody plays!). EA pay for each game 'instance' (which apparently, is cheaper than having persistent servers). So they have just doubled their server cost with no commensurate increase in players. It's all about MONEY.
It may cost more, but it certainly wouldn't be double. Instead of having one big pool of players, they're split into two. That doesn't mean twice as many servers are needed. If every lobby is being filled, then it would be the same amount of servers either way. There's a lot of factors, but your math ain't working here. Your example relies on splitting up ONE full server, but that's not how this works. There might be enough console players to support 2. 5 servers, and enough PC players to support 1.5. So two servers would be needed for PC, and 3 for Console, instead of 4 in a perfect scenario. That' not double.
Sure companies are trying to make money, but if people aren't playing your game, they aren't spending money. If your game isn't well received, people aren't buying your game. It's a balancing act. People really need to take the money talk out of the forums because it's not our job to figure it out. Everything we ask for is within reason, and usually has been done before. We need to discuss things from the consumer end and as players of the game, not as board members. Seriously, it's weird. I want dedicated servers, so then they need to cut the cost somewhere else then, it's not my job to figure that out. I just voice my priorities and what my expectations are, and hope they deliver. If not, I won't but the game.
