this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2024
212 points (96.9% liked)

Games

16800 readers
680 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

They had no problems taking everyone’s money. Maybe companies should limit the number of sales when deploying a product tied to services they operate and need to scale.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 106 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (17 children)

The peak concurrent users for the game thus far has been less than 1/10th of that (EDIT: slightly more than 1/10th of that). They were well within the bounds of what they simulated. They just screwed up.

[–] einlander@lemmy.world 6 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Didn't account for the initial interest peak.

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 24 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

No, that's what I'm saying. That peak is well under what they claimed they simulated.

[–] Album@lemmy.ca -3 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Peak concurrent was marred by the game not being playable. It's not really a good indicator here.

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 21 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

It is, because everyone trying to download assets from the game servers were doing so from the executable that Steam tracks as running.

[–] Venator@lemmy.nz 5 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (2 children)

You don't have to buy it from steam, might've been more users from gamepass and xbox than steam?

[–] taladar@sh.itjust.works 7 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

It is a flight simulator, somehow I doubt it has more console than PC users. Consoles are just too limited to satisfy that particular demographic. Can't even connect half a dozen different input devices to a console.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 6 points 10 hours ago

In classic Microsoft style, "Xbox" doesn't necessarily mean the console. It's also the name of their gaming service and the store you can use to buy games on Windows.

[–] Venator@lemmy.nz 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Dunno what the sales for the new one are like, but the 2020 ms flight sim had a lot more mass appeal than any older flight sims, but maybe a lot of xbox players were put off by the pre download requirements?

Also when it's on game pass the barrier to entry is a lot lower, as a lot of people might install it with the intention of only playing it for like 5 minutes to see if they can see thier house or something, which they probably wouldn't pay full price on steam to do 😅

[–] Venator@lemmy.nz 1 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

But yeah it definitely sounds like thier test for 200k players probably had bigger instances provisioned than what they ended up using in the production release 😅

You'd think they'd be able to do some sort of auto scaling when demand goes up though... 😅

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 8 points 15 hours ago

Perhaps, but 10x as many? I suppose it's possible, but I don't think it's likely.

[–] Album@lemmy.ca -4 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)

It's not, because downloading assets was not working, and with it not working eventually the user will shut it down thus having an effect on peak concurrent. It's not even that complex. If people can play your game they will stay on it increasing the count, if people cannot play your game they will not, thus decreasing the count.

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 9 points 18 hours ago

Exactly. The peak number of people trying to download it simultaneously was about 24k. They didn't all stick around because it wasn't working, even though that's about 1/10th of what the devs expected and prepared for the demand to be. They didn't get anywhere close to 200k people all hitting that server at once.

load more comments (15 replies)