3 ms·
Surprised they didn't have a longer sunsetting period. Unless the server costs are massive it seems like a year or so would be more appropriate. Maybe their 28
by overgard 8y ago
Surprised they didn't have a longer sunsetting period. Unless the server costs are massive it seems like a year or so would be more appropriate. Maybe their 28 day retention is just low enough that they didn't think there were enough long term players for it to matter.
- VectorLock 8y agoWhy would they spend another penny on servers for a game they see no future in?
- overgard 8y agoTo not alienate customers that may pay for future games.
- caymanjim 8y agoThe server costs are likely trivial compared to the employee cost. They'd need to retain support staff, both for the technical side (server maintenance) and in-game moderation and customer management. I've worked on a number of medium-to-large systems. They're literally always held together with duct tape and prayers. The entire thing would probably collapse in a few days if someone weren't there babysitting the storage infrastructure alone.
- overgard 8y agoI suppose it depends on how robust your infrastructure is. I know one place I worked, we sunset a game and essentially there was only one person supporting it part-time; with events being automated through a calendar. I'm sure if Apple or Google were to make some sort of major breaking change that would require engineering time to keep the game running they'd shut it down, but otherwise AFAIK it's still running on autopilot about 8 months after they made that decision.
- soup10 8y agothis really depends, i'm sure many of us here run servers that have been humming along for years and are rarely even thought about