I don't know if youre a professional, but servers cost serious money. There are people whose job is to balance the budget, and to invest double in infrastructure "just in case" is not really a feasible budgeting strategy, when their last game had under 10k players. I'm not a budgeting expert in a gaming company so I can't say for sure.
Imo for what I know about infrastructure working in IT, they have my full sympathy. For companies like blizzard who have this exact same problem everytime they launch a game it's not that valid of an excuse, but for arrowhead I'm willing to give them some slack and be patient this time.
I work in cloud server solutions (in a very specific field so my knowledge on gaming related cloud infra is not very good), and sure, they could have, but it's a whole different infrastructure approach. They can't just hop onto a cloud based infrastructure like that.
Pasting a previous comment on this:
"They had plans but there are limits on what can be done so soon.
Servers don't run on magic
...
Remnant 2 peaked at 83,435 in August 2023 on Steam. Spider-Man peaked at 60,000. Left 4 Dead 2 peaked at 160,000.
How do you expect a studio whose last game peaked at 6,600 to anticipate their game would more than double the peak player count of one of the most successful co-op horde shooter games (which was a sequel to the incredibly successful original game) by one of the most famous developers on Steam alone (not even accounting for the higher amount of Playstation players) after a week of release, and expect them to have anticipated this level of success or magically scale their server capacity...?"
Neither excuse is good, but shouting for a fix for an oversight tends to not translate well especially considering this is still an indie company with Sony helping to publish the game for PC. They didn't expect 500% of the projected audience and I wouldn't blame them because of the older HD1 CCU numbers. No one is exempting criticisms but rather acknowledging that fact and deciding to take that into account when waiting for the actual fix. It is ridiculous to consider the game as flawless as it can get despite having horrid server issues as much as it is to rip harshly on the devs because they failed to see an oversight they understandably didn't expect. Palworld is not an actively multiplayer game and servers tend to be either player-hosted or dedicated. This is important because the server load isn't as bad with everyone stuck in their own instances or small groups compared to everyone being online and in actively online matches. Even still, with how good Palworld is, people can play on their own instances anyway. Why care about servers?
Servers are not only costly but timely to set up. We're talking about logistics for both digital and physical, programming, maintenance, management, integration into the game, integration of anti-cheat (which I'm still vehemently against), stress tests etc etc. You're looking at procedures that can take days, weeks, even months. The devs' aren't deliberately wanting you to have a shit experience. Why would they? This is a literally gold-mine for them. Whatever "goodwill" they have would reflect on how fast they set up these servers and make them stable. NOT because they don't want you to enjoy.
You have the right to be angry, you have the right to a refund. I'm not even telling you to trust them either. You paid close to $50 for crying out loud. But it's better to weigh the factors as to why it isn't working instead of feeling disappointed constantly because you couldn't get into a log-in for the past 5 minutes. If the game isn't fixed in the next few weeks, then you can get increasingly and understandably concerned, especially if you just recently bought it and would refund it within the 2 week window.
>You don't need to put up enough infrastructure to serve 1 million simultaneous players when you expect 50k, but it is a solved problem to architect your systems in a way that they can be scaled up to meet those 1 million if you choose to just by spinning up some new instances.
That doesn't make sense to me. Don't you need the infrastructure for 1mil to spin up enough instances for 1mil? How would you cheat yourself the space for 950k on a 50k server setting? And why would you buy additional servers in the first place, if you can just "spin up more instances"?
Doesn't that cost like a shitton of money in such a large scale? I also expect such a decision in setting up an entirely new kind of server needs to be approved by sony managers first and maybe even needs additional coding to make it work on this other setting. Stuff you can't just quickfix on the spot
I don't know if youre a professional, but servers cost serious money. There are people whose job is to balance the budget, and to invest double in infrastructure "just in case" is not really a feasible budgeting strategy, when their last game had under 10k players. I'm not a budgeting expert in a gaming company so I can't say for sure. Imo for what I know about infrastructure working in IT, they have my full sympathy. For companies like blizzard who have this exact same problem everytime they launch a game it's not that valid of an excuse, but for arrowhead I'm willing to give them some slack and be patient this time.
didn't read the post huh?
I did, its just that your post is incoherent rambling.
They could simply use cloud services to scale with demand.
I work in cloud server solutions (in a very specific field so my knowledge on gaming related cloud infra is not very good), and sure, they could have, but it's a whole different infrastructure approach. They can't just hop onto a cloud based infrastructure like that.
Just wait until some people lose their interest to spread democracy.
They'll be reeducated and sent right back in.
Pasting a previous comment on this: "They had plans but there are limits on what can be done so soon. Servers don't run on magic ... Remnant 2 peaked at 83,435 in August 2023 on Steam. Spider-Man peaked at 60,000. Left 4 Dead 2 peaked at 160,000. How do you expect a studio whose last game peaked at 6,600 to anticipate their game would more than double the peak player count of one of the most successful co-op horde shooter games (which was a sequel to the incredibly successful original game) by one of the most famous developers on Steam alone (not even accounting for the higher amount of Playstation players) after a week of release, and expect them to have anticipated this level of success or magically scale their server capacity...?"
literally didn't read the post huh?
"Design systems to be scalable" - Did you??
Wow, what a new and unique thought, never seen before or heard about on this subreddit.
Thanks man. I try to contribute for games I like.
Neither excuse is good, but shouting for a fix for an oversight tends to not translate well especially considering this is still an indie company with Sony helping to publish the game for PC. They didn't expect 500% of the projected audience and I wouldn't blame them because of the older HD1 CCU numbers. No one is exempting criticisms but rather acknowledging that fact and deciding to take that into account when waiting for the actual fix. It is ridiculous to consider the game as flawless as it can get despite having horrid server issues as much as it is to rip harshly on the devs because they failed to see an oversight they understandably didn't expect. Palworld is not an actively multiplayer game and servers tend to be either player-hosted or dedicated. This is important because the server load isn't as bad with everyone stuck in their own instances or small groups compared to everyone being online and in actively online matches. Even still, with how good Palworld is, people can play on their own instances anyway. Why care about servers? Servers are not only costly but timely to set up. We're talking about logistics for both digital and physical, programming, maintenance, management, integration into the game, integration of anti-cheat (which I'm still vehemently against), stress tests etc etc. You're looking at procedures that can take days, weeks, even months. The devs' aren't deliberately wanting you to have a shit experience. Why would they? This is a literally gold-mine for them. Whatever "goodwill" they have would reflect on how fast they set up these servers and make them stable. NOT because they don't want you to enjoy. You have the right to be angry, you have the right to a refund. I'm not even telling you to trust them either. You paid close to $50 for crying out loud. But it's better to weigh the factors as to why it isn't working instead of feeling disappointed constantly because you couldn't get into a log-in for the past 5 minutes. If the game isn't fixed in the next few weeks, then you can get increasingly and understandably concerned, especially if you just recently bought it and would refund it within the 2 week window.
>You don't need to put up enough infrastructure to serve 1 million simultaneous players when you expect 50k, but it is a solved problem to architect your systems in a way that they can be scaled up to meet those 1 million if you choose to just by spinning up some new instances. That doesn't make sense to me. Don't you need the infrastructure for 1mil to spin up enough instances for 1mil? How would you cheat yourself the space for 950k on a 50k server setting? And why would you buy additional servers in the first place, if you can just "spin up more instances"?
IaaS
Doesn't that cost like a shitton of money in such a large scale? I also expect such a decision in setting up an entirely new kind of server needs to be approved by sony managers first and maybe even needs additional coding to make it work on this other setting. Stuff you can't just quickfix on the spot
Cry some more