region becomes less and less of an issue year on year. I now have better ping to transatlantic ping test servers than friends in areas not served by high speed broadband have to domestic test servers. Servers that are locked by some sort of ping level would be great, but then you run the risk of making it so that people who live on opposite sides of a street can't play with each other because high speed internet hasn't made it across the street yet. Ie, I could play with my New York friends but not my over the road neighbour. Plus it's hard to implement on console because console manufacturers [b]not developers[/b] are the ones that set the rules on what restrictions can be placed on players and the appropriate thresholds for those restrictions. Games like BF4 get around this by having regional servers, but allowing players to connect to those servers from anywhere in the world (leading to times of the day when US servers have a high transpacific population because they are more interesting to play on than "local" servers) So while these seem like "obvious" solutions the actual realities of trying to implement them and the extent of positive effect they could have is different than one would imagine.

It seemed like you are, you have great common sense than.

Thank you, people think Dedicated servers will fixed world wide matchmaking and it makes me laugh every time!

Yup every Cdn has the ability to store static images and content. Live content too. It's been a few years since I worked for a Cdn but i believe they could Help Destiny beyond static

That depends entirely on how the lag compensation is worked. Remember that unlike PC, console devs have to ensure that their games are playable within net capability tolerances set by [b]console manufacturers[/b]. They have to take a [b]balanced[/b] approach to lag comp, and that means that they can't make it a totally shit experience for people with potato net that is within console manufacturer tolerances. And so yet again my point comes to the top: Why the hell do people living in first world countries, paying the same first world prices to same providers as each other have to put up with potato net in some areas and high speed networks in others. I expect my internet service provider to use MY money to build a fast reliable network. I don't expect them to only make it fast and reliable in my street, I PAY them to maintain the [b]whole[/b] network so that I can have use of the whole network. And if that means that they need to invest in their rural areas so that I can have use of their network to communicate in a fast and reliable manner with my friends in rural areas then [b]damnit[/b] I have PAID for that work to be carried out. But telecoms companies LOVE to screw extra money out of customers and hold them to ransom, passing on the costs of network expansion to individuals and governments rather than acting as a CAPITALIST enterprise and making those network improvements themselves on the basis that investment now leads to profit later. So we just let them hedge their profits against our willingness to put up with shit services and our governmental willingness to suffer the consequences of slow networks in an age of increasing network saturation. Bear in mind that while this looks like a rural problem NOW, current network infrastructure isn't going to remain static for long and it will be within the decade that we see some new variety of high speed internet become "standard" and a new definition of "high def" become the desired output of our games, and a new definition of potato net become clear. And then we'll ALL be held to ransom until we cough up yet again for network expansion and so the cycle will continue.

Thanks that's a good explanation

I feel like @Kannibal answered this well above

Think my exact quote was it doesn't fix bad internet connections. I definitely misread your comments about next small town over without the little elaboration. Let me explain why. Why do I not care that they're a hop skip away from good internet, because that literally changes nothing concerning the dedicated server discussion. They have bad internet with and without dedicated servers. Now when I see you're saying concerning infrastructure get it (my bad). As I believe we've agreed on. Dedicated servers are expensive. I'm sure we can agree that it's not easy to guess how many will be playing in a geographical are down the the minute. It's a big financial burden and a tough decision to decide how many dedicated severs where. At the end of the day Bungie needs to make good money. Same thing is true with infrastructure, but you go out to these small towns. They're never ever going to cover your maintenance costs let alone initial wires. Which is extremely expensive. The costs that those rural people would have to pay just for the company to break even would be crazy. You want quality internet I'd suggest not isolating yourself. I say this as someone who literally grew up on the wrong side of the border. Cable wasn't possible and Internet sucked. The edge of our property line was the country. From house to edge of property was 6 yards at most. As a company why expand for one house when the next house is 1 mile plus down? Should tax payers subsidize my internet.