skip to main content
10.1145/944592.944601acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescommConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article
Free Access

Networked games: a QoS-sensitive application for QoS-insensitive users?

Published:25 August 2003Publication History

ABSTRACT

Research into providing different levels of network Quality of Service (QoS) often assumes that there is a large market for QoS-sensitive applications that will be fulfilled once QoS-enabled networks have been deployed. Multiplayer networked games are an example of such an application that requires QoS, and hence will only become popular if QoS is made widely available. The prima facie evidence, however, is that games are already popular, in spite of the existing QoS-free best-effort Internet.Networked games may have become popular despite the lack of QoS because players "make do" with what is available to them. Such popularity is a double-edged sword. It may mean that there is a demand, as yet unfulfilled, from game players for QoS-enabled networks. On the other hand, it may mean that players have become accustomed to playing games without QoS, and therefore might be less willing to pay for higher QoS when it does eventually become available.In this paper we present the results of a short experiment to examine the QoS tolerances of game players. We use a set of popular First Person Shooter (FPS) game servers that are publicly available to Internet users at large. By systematically altering the network latency to the servers, we attempt to study whether degraded QoS (in the form of higher network delay) affects a user's decision to participate in the game.We find that increased network delay has an effect on a user's decision to join a game server. It appears, however, that there is no significant difference in the number of players who leave the game as a result of increased delay. We speculate that this may be due to a user's enjoyment exceeding their QoS-sensitivity, and discuss the implications of our findings with respect to providing and charging for QoS.

References

  1. G. Armitage. Sensitivity of Quake3 players to network latency. Poster, ACM SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Workshop 2001, Berkeley, CA, USA, Nov. 2001.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. R. W. Bailey. Human Performance Engineering --- Using Human Factors/Ergonomics to Achieve Computer System Usability. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, second edition, 1989.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Y. W. Bernier. Latency compensating methods in client/server in-game protocol design and optimization. In Proceedings of the 15th Games Developers Conference, San Jose, CA, USA, Mar. 2001.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. S. Blake, D. L. Black, M. Carlson, E. Davies, Z. Wang, and W. Weiss. An architecture for differentiated services, Dec. 1998. RFC 2475.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. R. Braden, D. Clark, and S. Shenker. Integrated Services in the Internet architecture: an overview, June 1994. RFC 1633.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. S. Cheshire. Latency and the quest for interactivity, Nov. 1996. White paper commissioned by Volpe Welty Asset Management, L.L.C., for the Synchronous Person-to-Person Interactive Computing Environments Meeting.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. M. F. Daneshmand, R. R. Roy, and C. G. Savolaine. Framework and requirements of quality of service for multimedia applications. In Proceedings of the 1997 IASTED International Conference on Intelligent Information Systems (IIS '97), pages 466--474, Grand Bahama Island, Bahamas, Dec. 1997.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Inside Sony Online Entertainment. Edge, 102:56--61, Oct. 2001.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. P. C. Fishburn and A. M. Odlyzko. Competitive pricing of information goods: Subscription pricing versus pay-per-use. Economic Theory, 13(2):447--470, Mar. 1999.]]Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. J. Heinanen, F. Baker, W. Weiss, and J. Wroclawski. Assured forwarding PHB group, June 1999. RFC 2597.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. T. Henderson. Latency and user behaviour on a multiplayer game server. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Networked Group Communication (NGC), pages 1--13, London, UK, Nov. 2001.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. T. Henderson. Observations on game server discovery mechanisms. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Network and System Support for Games (NetGames), pages 47--52, Braunschweig, Germany, Apr. 2002.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers. 1278.2-1995, IEEE Standard for Distributed Interactive Simulation --- Communication Services and Profiles. IEEE, New York, NY, USA, Apr. 1996.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. International Telecommunication Union. ITU-T Recommendation G.114: International telephone connections and circuits --- General Recommendations on the transmission quality for an entire international telephone connection --- One-way transmission time. International Telecommunication Union, Geneva, Switzerland, May 2000.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. V. Jacobson, K. Nichols, and K. Poduri. An expedited forwarding PHB, June 1999. RFC 2598.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Y. A. Korilis, A. A. Lazar, and A. Orda. Architecting noncooperative networks. IEEE Journal of Selected Areas In Communications, 13(7):1241--1251, Sept. 1995.]]Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. J. Larkin. Winning the monster game. Far Eastern Economic Review, page 32, Sept. 05, 2002.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. I. S. MacKenzie and C. Ware. Lag as a determinant of human performance in interactive systems. In Proceedings of the CHI '93 Conference on Human factors in computing systems, pages 488--493, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Apr. 1993.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. L. Mathy, C. Edwards, and D. Hutchison. Principles of QoS in group communications. Telecommunication Systems, 11(1--2):59--84, 1999.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. S. McCreary and K. Claffy. Trends in wide area IP traffic patterns: A view from Ames Internet Exchange. In Proceedings of the ITC Specialist Seminar on IP Traffic Modeling, Measurement and Management, Monterey, CA, USA, Sept. 2000.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. E. Medina. Yahoo enters game rental arena. Boston Globe, page C3, Sept. 23, 2002.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. netfilter/iptables project. http://netfilter.samba.org.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. A. M. Odlyzko. Internet pricing and the history of communications. Computer Networks, 36(5--6):493--517, Aug. 2001.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. M. Oliveira and T. Henderson. What online gamers really think of the Internet. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Network and System Support for Games (NetGames), pages 177--185, Redwood City, CA, USA, May 2003.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. L. Pantel and L. C. Wolf. On the impact of delay on real-time multiplayer games. In Proceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Network and Operating System Support for Digital Audio and Video (NOSSDAV), pages 23--29, Miami Beach, FL, USA, May 2002.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. K. Park, M. Sitharam, and S. Chen. Quality of service provision in noncooperative networks: heterogenous preferences, multi-dimensional QoS vectors, and burstiness. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Information and Computation Economies (ICE-98), pages 111--127, Charleston, SC, USA, Oct. 1998.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. K. S. Park and R. V. Kenyon. Effects of network characteristics on human performance in a collaborative virtual environment. In Proceedings of the IEEE Virtual Reality Conference (VR '99), pages 104--111, Houston, TX, USA, Mar. 1999.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. A. Patrizio. Coming soon: Pay-per-game. Wired News, Oct. 20, 2000. http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,39505,00.html.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. M. Ranta-aho, A. Leppinen, G. Poulain, A. Roella, M. Mirabelli, A. Ousland, and J. Norgaard. Task-dependent user requirements for Quality of service of Videoconferencing-CSCW services. In Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium on Human Factors in Telecommunications, pages 251--254, Oslo, Norway, May 1997.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. D. P. Reed. Going nowhere fast. Context Magazine, July/Aug. 1999.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. C. Schaefer, T. Enderes, H. Ritter, and M. Zitterbart. Subjective quality assessment for multiplayer real-time games. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Network and System Support for Games (NetGames), pages 74--78, Braunschweig, Germany, Apr. 2002.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. N. Sheldon, E. Girard, S. Borg, M. Claypool, and E. Agu. The effect of latency on user performance in Warcraft III. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Network and System Support for Games (NetGames), pages 3--14, Redwood City, CA, USA, May 2003.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Slashdot.org. How fast too slow? A study of Quake pings, May 24, 2001. http://slashdot.org/articles/01/05/24/2044233.shtml.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. M. Terrano and P. Bettner. 1500 archers on a 28.8: Network programming in Age of Empires and beyond. In Proceedings of the 15th Games Developers Conference, San Jose, CA, USA, Mar. 2001.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. I. Vaghi, C. Greenhalgh, and S. Benford. Coping with inconsistency due to network delays in collaborative virtual environments. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology, pages 42--49, London, UK, Dec. 1999.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  1. Networked games: a QoS-sensitive application for QoS-insensitive users?

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      RIPQoS '03: Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM workshop on Revisiting IP QoS: What have we learned, why do we care?
      August 2003
      56 pages
      ISBN:1581137486
      DOI:10.1145/944592

      Copyright © 2003 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 25 August 2003

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • Article

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader