- Joined: Mar 4, 2017
- Last Login: Oct 21, 2021, 11:38pm EDT
- Comments: 277
Share this profile
Looks like design constraints. Especially when each server is capped at two thousand players a piece.
Comment 1 reply, 1 rec
Well it’s easy for everyone like us, who are looking from the outside in to say "oh they could have thrown hardware at it, how hard could it be".
Think about how the game’s concurrency cap is just 2000 per server. That’s tiny compared against other MMOs. That’s a design constraint. You could throw up another 100 servers but if each can only hold two thousand players a piece, that doesn’t solve anything in an MMO context. The point of MMO is to have tens of thousands of players all in one server.
Not sharding a whole slew of servers that can only hold 2k players a piece.
Comment 3 replies
Oh ya I would stay far far away from reddit – and especially the Kinja family of sites(yes you, Kotaku and your tendency to always stick everyone in the grays).
I was a little shocked that the server cap was 2000. That’s honestly pretty small. If the reasons are technical and as a result people need to spread themselves out, that’s…pretty small. In WoW parlance, that’s a low-pop realm that in World of Warcraft, people would be looking for reasons to transfer their characters off to a higher-pop one.
I get the funny feeling that you’re right on your various points above. And I’m also thinking that this game wasn’t really designed from the ground up to scale that high from a server design perspective. I’m also curious on how Amazon plans to monetize the game post-launch. There are only going to be so many customers that’ll buy the "boxed copy" on day one, but what happens 3 months from now?
I don’t see it so much as a mark of shame, but rather a sign of inter-office politics and corporate mandates that hamstrung the company from being a true delivery of gaming services.
It would not shock me one bit, if they needed to endure mountains of Change Management controls just to submit a request for more server capacity…which then requires VP approval, and of course, a cost center for the AWS team to bill their time against.
Amazon is at its very heart, not a video game company. I don’t expect them to make wholesale changes to their way of doing things, and this is the result.
1) No, WoW is not dead. Yes, Shadowlands sucks, but TBC Classic is fantastic(barring a few brewfest bugs, sigh come on Blizzard).
2) Yes, Final Fantasy is more popular than it’s ever been. It is a different MMO compared to WoW of course.
3) New World is an entirely new game and the newness is very attractive to a lot of players who are a bit fatigued on the traditional tab-target MMO.
A very big draw is that New World does not have a subscription fee, unlike WoW and FF. But time will tell how Amazon approaches how to manage those server costs and what ongoing monetization strategy they have. A single boxed cost does not a lasting MMO make.
Comment 1 rec
That post does not state "Apple will reintroduce Fortnite back to the App Store on X date". It merely states that Apple would welcome it back, if Epic played by the rules of everyone else.
If I said to you that I would let you in my house, if you acted like everyone else, is that an open invitation to come on in with open arms? Or would you be a little wary?
I didn’t say "hey you’re invited in on X day and Y time". There’s a very big difference here.
I don’t agree with the general Anti-Blizzard vibe here, but I don’t think this board game will take off for a core reason:
Wrath of the Lich King is old. It was released 2009/2010 timeframe and that’s over a decade ago. This board game should have been made at that time, not now.
It’s too late now.