this post was submitted on 03 Feb 2024
314 points (95.9% liked)

PC Gaming

8505 readers
761 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.
  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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 97 points 9 months ago (4 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 22 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 15 points 9 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 9 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 10 points 9 months ago

Found blizzard.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Zagorath 14 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 9 months ago

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

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Those are all the same attributes, just the planned out version of it where the balance of speed, reliability and cost are decided upon ahead of time.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago

I'll take fast twice.

Double fast, yeah 😎

[–] [email protected] 81 points 9 months ago (4 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 43 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (5 children)

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)

[–] [email protected] 47 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 27 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 32 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

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

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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)
[–] [email protected] 44 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 49 points 9 months ago

*East India Pokemon Company

[–] [email protected] 32 points 9 months ago (4 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 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

[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago (2 children)

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

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago

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

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago (3 children)

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)
[–] [email protected] 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.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 37 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Or they're super inefficient.

[–] [email protected] 50 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 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)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago

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

[–] [email protected] 16 points 9 months ago

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

load more comments
view more: next ›