Ask HN: Why do MMORPG launches always go so wrong? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Why do MMORPG launches always go so wrong?

8 pointsthenomad5 comments

It's by now a cliche that on the first day of an MMORPG game launch, the servers will fall over horribly and no-one will be able to play.

But why is that? I mean, it's not like TCP/IP or server technology is exactly bleeding-edge stuff, it's not that the companies deploying this stuff are cash-strapped (we're talking about Blizzard Entertainment as an example, for pity's sake), and it's not like they're not aware of the problem (Arena.net, whose game Guild Wars 2 is in login server hell as I write, have done months of stress-testing).

So what is it that means triple-A titles with hundreds of millions of dollars riding on them still always go pear-shaped on day 1? Can anyone enlighten me?

You can't buy or build enough servers to handle a short term rush. It is not cost effective. There is much more to it and I don't really feel like writing an essay, but the above point is probably one of the biggest.

I have been wondering if you could build an mmo where the servers run on things like aws so you could add and drop servers as needed.

This is precisely how Zynga weathered the massive, near overnight success of FarmVille from a server capacity standpoint -- AWS!

Yeah, I'm surprised that the companies don't use something like a cloud service to handle the short term rush. It might be expensive to have the infrastructure in place to handle the rush, but surely protest reviews on Amazon and Metacritic - which are getting a lot of press for nigh-on killing some games - are more expensive?

So if it's economically unfeasible to let gamers play in the short term after the release why add connection-only single player and let customers down on day 1?

They want to fight pirates by demanding constant authorization in their games, but guess who wins with this.

(I understand these are not MMOs.)

Blizzard hasn't been the same since they merged with Activision. They claim that they remained completely in control of the company, yet every decision they make is the same exact one that Bobby Kotick would have made. That is the best explanation I can give.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com