19

While I don't currently play online multiplayer games, I have been following the "Stop Killing Games" campaign, and of course noticed that the main reason that publishers can render games unplayable is centralization.

Games didn't always use centralized servers - they used to be run by players, but simply reverting to that model wouldn't provide the functionality players expect. They want to be able to play with people they don't already know - anyone who's online at the same time.

So it seems like a good use case for federation, do you agree? Each instance could be a "playerbase" and allow games to find players and servers to bring together.

top 2 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] poorejustyn@piefed.social 6 points 6 months ago

The server browser in games with dedicated servers does that, for example Killing Floor 1 or 2, any of the BattleFields before 4, DayZ. Then you have games with dedicated servers that don't have server browser, Minecraft, Terraria.

Which I feel playing with random people in a survival game isn't as wanted as it is FPS, really I think a LFG gaming sub-piefed/lemmi whatever you want to call it, is a much better solution then trying to get every dev to add a server browser.

[-] sanity_is_maddening@piefed.social 3 points 6 months ago

Well, I've never found a case or a context where decentralisation and the subsequent federation are not the best option for stability and longevity.

The basic principle to any sustainable and stable model requires sovereignty.

Otherwise it's all a ticking bomb that goes out when the imposed setting displeases too many without them having control over their decisions and context, in which rebellion becomes the necessity to end that cycle.

Without decentralization, it's all a never-ending succession of predictable cycles.

And this is true in literally everything. When power consolidates, it's all a matter of time until a shift in paradigm is required. Because rule is imposed disregarding context. Which is illogical but also inevitable in a centralised construct. This is not necessary when sovereignty is paramount and the individuals can make decisions that fit the context in which they reside.

So, this is isn't any different.

And your idea is perfectly adequate to solve the current problem in online gaming.

this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2025
19 points (100.0% liked)

Fediverse

1513 readers
51 users here now

Downvote are limited to members of this community

Welcome!

Can you imagine, years ago how the internet was before? We know Facebook, Twitter, Tiktok, Youtube. We knew blogger, Tumblr, Skyrock... and long before, it was the forum era as phpBB..and mail-lists.

And now with ActivityPub, we are reshaping the web, and achieving much more with lots of freedom. So thank you all, and welcome ๐ŸคŸ๐Ÿ˜

Our threads

Wiki

Resources

Related communities

If you want to donate, double check on the official website and report any problem to mod team

Social network

Threadiverse

FediBlog

Microblog

Event

Mediaverse

Audio

Streaming/live

Book

Culture review

Picture

Podcast

Short-video

Video

FediMarket


Image Credits :
Avatar : Wikipedia Eukombos
Banner : David Revoy licence : CC-BY-4.0

Rules

Moderation process
We all make mistakes,

If your comment is reported, and brings up a complex issue, we will reach out to you and ask you to rephrase it.

Our goal, is to create a serene space for discussion. Nothing more.

If the post isn't edited to remove hurtful language element, we will have to remove it. It would be a shame because your comment was interesting and you took some time to write it.

In case of xenophobia, racism, transphobia, homophobia or harassment, it will be a permanent ban.

founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS