When you worked in games, how did your team deal with the unplanned scenarios where a feature, or even the core game, wasn’t fun and you needed to go back to the drawing board?

You’re completely missing the point I’m making - it’s nothing to do with how matchmaking works or how to get self-hosted servers to work.

Your quote about “every game before the mid 2000s” is just reinforcing what I’m trying to tell you: no modern PvP game can get away with it anymore.

The current average player who’s played any modern PvP game in recent memory expects to be able to click a PLAY button that puts them into a match. That is your default user experience expectation.

If you require players to have to dig through a server list like people had to during the pre-mid-2000s, you lose players FAST.

You dilute your player base by allowing people to play in self-hosted servers because your default user experience of clicking PLAY and getting into a game gets worse (less players means less diversity of player skill and longer queue times).

For a game and studio that has no existing reputation and players who will jump on their stuff, you don’t have the luxury of splitting your already potentially small player base.

Modern PvP games that allow you to have custom games are all well-established and already have a healthy player base.

I don’t think it’s fair to assume what is or isn’t a leap for a developer. Unless you’ve worked on the game in question, we have no idea how easy or difficult it is to support any feature implementation.

Some would like to argue that “they should have thought about it!” and my answer to that is: that’s not how game development works.

Making games is hard, and unless you’re Valve with virtually infinite time and money, you have to make difficult decisions about what will get you to the finish line the fastest, while maintaining a minimum quality bar.

Every feature implementation takes time, and every added feature takes time away from something else, which takes you further away from shipping the game.

I have no idea how any game client and server implementations work (outside of games I’ve actually worked on), and I’m pretty certain you don’t either, so saying something is “zero effort to add” is presumptuous and naive.

None of what you’ve said solves any of the issues that I pointed out, only “look at how much extra gameplay you might get!”, and that’s assuming the devs took the time to make their game easily moddable.

For a primarily PvP game, the biggest challenge a studio (especially a small or mid-sized one) faces is gaining a large enough population of players early on. Without critical mass, the player base will rapidly dwindle because people get tired of waiting in queues for their games to start (whether it’s by matchmaking or finding a custom server), or the quality of the games get worse because they’re constantly getting matched outside their skill level (stomping or being stomped).

Providing examples of games from Valve doesn’t prove anything because Valve is an extreme outlier. They can afford to put a game out with zero marketing on their part and achieve 170k player concurrency - what other studio has that?

I’m not disputing the potential advantages that you’ve brought up - I’m only trying to explain the rationale that devs without virtually infinite time, effort and money have to contend with when working on a PvP game.

That’s why I specifically pointed out PvP.

While this sounds like a good idea, in the modern landscape of PvP games, it would never work.

Current player expectations for PvP games are now “click play, get into game”. Every layer of friction filters out players who don’t want to go through the hassle of being able to just play the game they bought.

It seems easy for you because you played multiplayer games in the 90s, but anyone born after that era will have to learn to filter through a megalist of servers with names like “BoB’s L33t S3rv3r”.

But let’s play devil’s advocate and say the devs could still add the self-hosted servers to their game in a couple different ways.

If devs added it to accompany the default matchmaking, there’s now the problem of their player base being siphoned away from the main matchmaking pool, which further destroys the default player experience.

If devs added self-hosted servers as a way to supplement their own matchmaking servers (e.g. officially hosted servers + player hosted servers), the player experience can now wildly vary depending on which server you connect to, especially since devs can’t guarantee the same experience on random Joe’s home ISP connection and server hardware.

There’s no winning for the devs. While your sentiment is valid, the practicality of doing it is not feasible anymore.

The sunsetting idea is good though and I wished that happened more too.

But how else will they sell you the same ‘remastered’ game 10 years from now?

Think of the corporations!

Genuine curiosity: are you a professional game developer?

This was my initial opinion until I read the whole article.

“I got my blood tested, I had MRI scans, I had a CT scan, I had ultrasound and blood compatibility test with her. I was a match,” said Allan.

Transplant guidelines in Ontario and much of Canada require patients with ALD to first qualify for a deceased donor liver. If they don’t meet that criteria, they aren’t considered for a living liver transplant, even if one is available.

Her partner was a willing, compatible donor, wanted to give her his liver and was prevented from doing so. So yes, this is a cruel take.

“Forever Pay For Your Mouse”

I’ve read a number of comments like yours and have always been curious about this sentiment.

I feel similarly iffy about the whole process. Despite that, I can’t think of a viable alternative at this point in time that wouldn’t lead to a disastrous result.

I genuinely want to know: if he does step down and give way to another candidate, who do you have in mind? Is it one person? Is it multiple? Or are we just hoping that if he steps down, a magical better candidate will show up?

Conversely, I’ve only ever seen “make do” used.

“Make due” would make sense to me in the context where debt is a factor, for example, “make due on rent”.

It doesn’t make sense when you apply that meaning to how the sentence was written in this article.

While writing this angry comment, did you stop to consider that maybe they did their job right and you’re wrong?

https://www.grammar.com/make_do_vs._make_due

Unless you’re living in the early 1900s, “make do” is correct for today’s English.

If you’re open to trying a latex mattress, sleeponlatex.com is the best mattress you can find. Latex mattresses can last a very long time (10 to 20 years), and theirs is great quality.

My partner and I had tried so many different kinds of mattresses when we were hunting, and theirs was the first that was comfortable, soft, supportive and breathable. We got a medium firm mattress with a soft 3" topper.

They have a 100 day return policy for their mattresses so there was no risk for us trying it!