319
submitted 9 months ago by alessandro@lemmy.ca to c/pcgaming@lemmy.ca
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] jet@hackertalks.com 99 points 9 months ago

Fast, cheap, reliable. You can have any two you want.

[-] JudahBenHur@lemm.ee 22 points 9 months ago

this is a server basterdization of "Good, Fast, Cheap" regarding producing just about anything I'm guessing, which tends to hold true in the real world quite well, yes?

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 15 points 9 months ago

As an engineer yeah, but honestly it’s usually pick one to prioritize, one to strive for, and one to ignore.

We can get it out fast, and it can be not bad but pretty expensive or it can be pretty cheap but not good. If we get it good we can try to do it cheaply and take our time, or we can try to do it quickly and it’ll be expensive.

[-] BluesF@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago

I just go for bad, slow, and expensive. This way everyone leaves me alone.

[-] Specal@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago

Found blizzard.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Zagorath@aussie.zone 14 points 9 months ago

That works for some contexts, but no amount of time can get you both total reliability and low costs, so in this case it's pick one.

[-] ramble81@lemm.ee 17 points 9 months ago

In this context “fast” refers to speed of the system, not time to implement.

[-] baconisaveg@lemmy.ca 6 points 9 months ago

On spec, on time, on budget. Failure to meet those goals is a result of piss poor planning.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] SirQuackTheDuck@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

I'll take fast twice.

Double fast, yeah 😎

[-] YeetPics@mander.xyz 81 points 9 months ago

Well 19m players x $29 is $551,000,000 banked so far.

They could pocket a few dozen million and still run the servers for around 85 years.

[-] alessandro@lemmy.ca 43 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Don't forget the cutshare

29 = (8.7 to Valve) (20.3 Pocket)

7m are on Xbox, so the count is:

Pocket = 243.6 m (on 12m copies sold)

Valve = 104.4 m ( on 12m copies sold)

[-] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 47 points 9 months ago

Valve reduces their cut to 20% after the first $50M in sales

[-] GhostMatter@lemmy.ca 27 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

The article mentions all that, but it seems that no one has read it.

[-] BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca 32 points 9 months ago

Because it's much more interesting to learn the important content or what people think is contained in an article by heated discussions than reading it.

[-] conorab@lemmy.conorab.com 12 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

They said the quiet part out loud! Get ‘em!

[-] SuperSaiyanSwag@lemmy.zip 3 points 9 months ago

It’s on Gamepass for Xbox, unless those numbers are non-gamepass copies.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 9 months ago

You’re forgetting the fact that all stores take a fee, and many users are paying a pittance to play through game pass, which can cost as low as $1.

They still made quite a lot, but not $29 per user.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 46 points 9 months ago

If the game ever stops, people might realize they're playing Palworld.

[-] chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world 49 points 9 months ago

*East India Pokemon Company

[-] sunbytes@lemmy.world 32 points 9 months ago

The thing is, I don't need to be online.

I bet most people are playing single player.

Apart from the people doing multiplayer 10-20%?) everyone else could just be offline.

This is for them.

[-] Specal@lemmy.world 19 points 9 months ago

But it also proves that if a company gives a shit, they can do it. This can be achieved with lower costs and experience, so in time the costs will come down.

Whereas Activision blizzard don't give a fuck and anytime there's a new DlC or game there's significant downtime despite being a multi billion dollar company. Why people continue to support them I'll never know

[-] Coreidan@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago
[-] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 9 months ago

This is 100% not about DRM. Cracked clients work just fine, even on official multiplayer servers.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] wolfshadowheart@slrpnk.net 5 points 9 months ago

Pirates play on Palworld servers no problem. No problem at all.

[-] lorty@lemmy.ml 5 points 9 months ago

It's even weirder because I'd expect even those playing with friends to be doing so in their locally hosted servers with at most 4 friends I think? The people playing on the official servers are such a minority that I can't fathom this cost being worth it.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] doubletwist@lemmy.world 31 points 9 months ago

$500k/mo isn't really even all that much in cloud costs. I did some work for a large company and just the PoC/development account for our project alone was $100k/mo.

[-] 50gp@kbin.social 31 points 9 months ago

thats a fuckton of server space, i didnt think playing on random official servers with no admins or good anti cheats would be that popular

[-] BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk 37 points 9 months ago

Or they're super inefficient.

[-] LazerVHSion@lemmy.world 50 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Running a passworded Palworld server on Linux. Have about 7-10 active players on it and the server instance balloons up to ~33GB of RAM usage in less than 12 hours of uptime.

Supposedly disabling some features (like base raids) reduces resource utilization, but was curious what stock settings would do.

When it was restricted to 10GB on a container it would just crash every couple of hours, running out of resources.

[-] feminalpanda 17 points 9 months ago

The issue that we found is the game doesn't let go of the players when the log off and also memory leaks. I have the server reboot after taking a backup each day.

[-] LazerVHSion@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

That makes things even more bizarre considering pal AI just ceases to function if you log out at a base and leave pals out.

But early access is early access I guess 😂

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] MangoPenguin@discuss.online 4 points 9 months ago

It is, RAM usage is absolutely wild on it and it needs constant reboots.

[-] rab@lemmy.ca 16 points 9 months ago

Hey my boss tells me the same and I barely make six figures wtf

[-] Rikj000@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 9 months ago

Imo they should:

  • Ask money for a subscription to go online on official servers (after they ironed out a good anti cheat)
  • Keep the self hosted / dedicated servers as a free alternative
[-] BananaTrifleViolin@lemmy.world 52 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

500k a month to support 19 million person play base doesn't seem totally unreasonable. They've already made £400m+ in early access in the first month - so it's a drop on the ocean at the moment.

Costs will probably come down - at the moment they've been scrambling to keep up with demand which means expensive rapid deployment rather than long term server build out.

And presumably they plan to get the game out of early access so potentially get more players (although may not get many more players in this case as it's so popular) and more importantly start rolling out DLC content to make more money.

I doubt they need to go the subscription route plus may be too late as they launched without it.

[-] echo64@lemmy.world 36 points 9 months ago

Also, the player base will be a fraction of what it is today in a month. They're dealing with unprecedented demand that's gonna fall off into something more reasonable by throwing money at it.

It's the right thing for them to do. It would have been stupid to plan for this much demand. You'd delay the game by another year just building out a cloud native architecture. Letting the servers buckle would have killed momentum.

[-] lemmyng@lemmy.ca 8 points 9 months ago

They can go the Minecraft route and allow players to self host servers, plus a subscription option for online servers.

[-] feminalpanda 4 points 9 months ago

They do, they need to work on the code but it works.

[-] Zagorath@aussie.zone 4 points 9 months ago

presumably they plan to get the game out of early access

I've heard that the company has a history of…not doing that. They apparently have a few games out that went early access and left in an unfinished state.

[-] Galaxy@lemm.ee 8 points 9 months ago

From what I can tell their games that are in early access have not been left to languish in an unfinished state and are still getting updates

I am assuming the reason for that rumor that they just leave games unfinished has to do with people who bought their previous game Craftopia, which is very similar to Palworld but without the creatures.

In the last 6 months it seems to have been getting constant updates and fixes (about 2 a month)based on the steam changelogs, so I am not sure how that came to be seen as the game being left to die.

[-] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 3 points 9 months ago

Because having 2 early access games at once and announcing a third is not the point of early access.

Steam should straight up ban developers from even creating any additional game pages while they have early access active.

[-] Pika@sh.itjust.works 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

This in my opinion is a horrible take. There are many games that companies just realize are not going to take off and therefore are not worth finishing, preventing a company from publishing a game because they have another game that they are not intending to finish that's still an early access is a horrible way to cut Innovation and prevent what could be very good games from publishing.

The very game you're commenting about is one of them, palworld was originally created as a jab to Pokemon that was its entire point of creation as more or less a joke it wasn't meant to be serious until a little bit into development. If they had been restricted down under what you're talking about they might not have even bothered launching it because nobody expected the game to take off the way it did.

Steam should not be punishing someone for using Early Access the way it was meant to be used, which is to demonstrate a game that is in early content state. As a consumer, you should not be buying Early Access games if you're worried about the game never being finished, Steam even States this under the description of Early Access. et instant access and start playing; get involved with this game as it develops.Note: This Early Access game is not complete and may or may not change further. If you are not excited to play this game in its current state, then you should wait to see if the game progresses further in development.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 03 Feb 2024
319 points (96.0% liked)

PC Gaming

8615 readers
745 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS