this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2024
267 points (96.8% liked)
Games
16800 readers
509 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- 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:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No, that's what I'm saying. That peak is well under what they claimed they simulated.
Peak concurrent was marred by the game not being playable. It's not really a good indicator here.
It is, because everyone trying to download assets from the game servers were doing so from the executable that Steam tracks as running.
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.
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.