They had no problems taking everyone’s money. Maybe companies should limit the number of sales when deploying a product tied to services they operate and need to scale.
They had no problems taking everyone’s money. Maybe companies should limit the number of sales when deploying a product tied to services they operate and need to scale.
Didn’t account for the initial interest peak.
No, that’s what I’m saying. That peak is well under what they claimed they simulated.
Peak concurrent was marred by the game not being playable. It’s not really a good indicator here.
It is, because everyone trying to download assets from the game servers were doing so from the executable that Steam tracks as running.
It’s not, because downloading assets was not working, and with it not working eventually the user will shut it down thus having an effect on peak concurrent. It’s not even that complex. If people can play your game they will stay on it increasing the count, if people cannot play your game they will not, thus decreasing the count.
Exactly. The peak number of people trying to download it simultaneously was about 24k. They didn’t all stick around because it wasn’t working, even though that’s about 1/10th of what the devs expected and prepared for the demand to be. They didn’t get anywhere close to 200k people all hitting that server at once.