[QUOTE=KillaMaaki;42677750]I don't think this even needs a switch. Just let the server handle all of the work! I think any player would immediately understand that more players means higher server workload. And for LAN games, the workload is negligible as there are usually only a few friends playing together.[/QUOTE]
I could agree that if there is to be a "LAN" mode, that if enough people want this, Garry could put the work in, but I don't know anyone that has LAN parties outside of mass competitions and national game events, anymore since the internet makes it more convenient to play. Heck the last time I did a LAN party was like 8 years ago (Counter Strike 1.6 at high school over a Friday night, as one of the guy's dad was a department head and allowed it).
Other than that, if Garry wouldn't mind chiming in on an estimation of cost increase for servers, that would be great. The biggest increase in cost is the bandwidth. I've also heard that the server workload increases exponentially as client count increases linearly when you do server side work whereas client side work is entirely linear for the server.
Games like Guild Wars and Second Life have server farms that they use to run their games which are incredibly expensive. I am entirely positive Garry is renting out a handful of shelves from various vendors around the world.
Most people don't have the money to run an actual server for the community anyway (I mean do you have $200/month to pay to rent a Rust Server as it stands today, much less if they made them more server side?).
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
