Hacker News Reader

Comment by lbcadden3 | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com