Match-making is one of the things that bothers me most about console gaming, and dedicated servers is one of my favorite things about PC gaming. With that in mind, I had an idea to bring dedicated servers (in a way) to consoles, and I was wondering if this had been done before.

The idea is to have a master server where players could create "virtual dedicated servers". Each "server" is a set of configurations like map rotation, weapons, health, etc. The server would have a name that would show up in the global server list. When the first player "connects" to this server, his console is actually loading those configurations and setting itself up as the host. If he disconnected, the game would perform the "migrating host" dance that Call of Duty does.

You could have elevated privileges for admins as well. Because it's on a console, there's very little chance of hacking. Although you wouldn't get the low ping and other technical benefits of dedicated servers, you would still get clan servers, admins and similar "social" benefits.

So my question is, has this been done before? Is it feasible? I think it would be too complex for an indie game, but I'd like to see an AAA title use this system.

Sony and Microsoft (and if you support them, Nintendo) have very strict requirements about game servers and about how matchmaking works. In order to develop on their consoles you need to follow their rules, including their rules for matchmaking services. They have fairly strict rules about private games and public games, the views of all games, and the rules to filter games.

That's a bummer. Makes me wonder what other creative ideas have been squashed by certification requirements.

The idea is to have a master server where players could create "virtual dedicated servers". Each "server" is a set of configurations like map rotation, weapons, health, etc. The server would have a name that would show up in the global server list. When the first player "connects" to this server, his console is actually loading those configurations and setting itself up as the host. If he disconnected, the game would perform the "migrating host" dance that Call of Duty does.

The main problem is the naming of those servers. Specifically, if you allow users to type "anything" into a text field that can be read by other users, it might slam your rating.


Basically, what you're describing already exists, except for the one part where you can't give it a "name." Most FPS games allow you to configure map rotation, alternate rules, capacity, etc.

Like hplus mentioned, this is pretty much right out of the box in Halo: Reach for example; aside, of course, from being able to name your own stuff.

[font="arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif"]

[color="#1C2837"]The main problem is the naming of those servers. Specifically, if you allow users to type "anything" into a text field that can be read by other users, it might slam your rating.

I feel like this is a minor issue for a large multiplayer game... there could be other ways of identifying servers. You could even enforce a limit of one virtual server per player, and then have them identified by gamertags.

Like hplus mentioned, this is pretty much right out of the box in Halo: Reach for example; aside, of course, from being able to name your own stuff.

[color="#1C2837"]Basically, what you're describing already exists, except for the one part where you can't give it a "name."
[color="#1C2837"]

Does it though? I know you can configure game settings and save them to your Xbox. But there's no persistence, right? Once the party's over, the "server" is down. You have to send out a bunch of invites to start a new game with the same people, right? It's not like a PC server where clan members are popping in and out all the time. I might be wrong, I don't play console games that often, but every time I do it's always match-making.[/font]