Allow decentralized game networking

published May 5, 2026

In the old days, many multiplayer games relied on server browser systems for online networking. Your game client would recieve a list of servers hosting a game session, and then you would connect to it and play. Or you could join any server on the Internet with an IP address.

But in the modern age, this style of game networking has fallen out of favor in exchange for automatic matchmaking. Instead of finding a server that you like to play on yourself- a server that could be hosted by anyone, the game will find and populate an official session for you.

Matchmaking has a variety of benefits, but in this post I want to focus on a specific drawback of using matchmaking exclusively (e.g. live service games) that harms many players and potential players of video games.

Battlefield 6, VALORANT, Apex Legends, Fortnite ... these and many more are examples of big online-only games that do not feature user based networking. They all rely on the continued support of centralized servers to exist, and deny users the freedom to play the game without the developer's approval. This is a bad thing.

Let's come up with some scenarios to illustrate my claim.

Case one: the cheater.

John is a Battlefield 6 player. He's spent a lot of time and money on the game- but decided to cheat and gets banned. John no longer has access to Battlefield 6 in any capacity, can no longer play with his friends, and basically just wasted all his time and money.

Is this a good deterrent for cheating? I suppose so. But should the penalty for cheating be completely losing access to the game you purchased? I acknowledge that you only ever own a license to the game, a license with terms that can be violated- but I personally don't agree that this should be the case.

Let's imagine instead that Battlefield 6 allowed user-based networking. John uses aim hacks in-game and gets banned. Then what?

Well, as a consequence, John would be banned from official servers. John would still have the ability to play the game- just either offline against bots, on community servers, or against his friends on LAN/P2P. He wouldn't be stripped of a product he should own.

Ownership wise- John may as well have been streaming the game from a cloud PC. The outcome is no different: the game is totally reliant on DICE servers and DICE approval to function. Without the developer's approval, he can't play.

Okay then. You could say "Well, that's a cheater. I don't care. He got what was coming to him". Let's try something different.

Case two: the unsupported platform

Lisa is a Linux user. She loves to play Apex Legends. Lisa heard that the game supported Linux users running the Windows version via Proton and whitelisted them in the anticheat. Hurray! She buys a bunch of skins or whatever and plays all night on her Steam Deck.

But then, Respawn, the developers of Apex Legends, did some analysis and found that letting Linux users play the game increased cheating. So they blocked them.

Lisa can no longer play Apex Legends on her computer unless she installs Microsoft Windows. Hurray...

NOW. Let's imagine instead that Apex Legends allowed user-based networking. THEN WHAT?

Lisa would just play in community servers against other Linux players. Or Respawn could host a Linux-only matchmaking lobby. Maybe there's more cheaters, but Lisa is still happy to play! And still use all the in-game content she bought.

Neither of these solutions are possible because the game was designed ONLY to be a live-service product. And in the absence of user based networking, Lisa is denied the ability to play the game in any capacity.

Games designed for a live-service model are fine. But they should also function as products even without the existence of official servers- both offline and via local networking. Valve games do this well. Open source games do this well.

There have been so many times where I have personally been affected by the fact that so many games refuse to work offline even in a limited capacity.

I bought Elite Dangerous just to simulate flying a spaceship. Like a walking simulator but in space. It's fun. But will not even allow you to access the offline missions without first authenticating with the developer's servers. I don't really own the game. I would be satisfied if I could just play the tutorial missions over and over. Just let me like, own a little bit of it?

Battlefield 6. Can't even play the campaign without a connection to DICE servers. Like, come on. Also can't even play the campaign via Proton on Linux. Much less connect to a community server or play matchmaking.

Hi-Fi Rush used to have Denuvo Anti-Tamper on it. Thank goodness it's been removed. Still can't buy Metal Gear Solid V or Persona 5 Royal on PC though- they'll disable themselves after a week or two if I don't connect to the internet. OR if I launch the game on too many Proton versions too fast!

I guess my post got a little tangled up between DRM, live-service, and offline support... but I think you get it. I just want to own the software I buy. Even just kind of. A little. Please.